ICCF-17 Shaping Up to be Notable Event

This year’s 17th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-17) in Daejeon, South Korea on August 12-17 is shaping up to be a high profile event with many of the prominent names in the LENR field scheduled to be presenting there. Some of the plenary and invited speakers listed on their site are names familiar to many who are following LENR developments, such as Frank Gordon (SPAWAR, ret.), Peter Hagelstein (MIT), Michael McKubre (SRI International), George Miley (Univ. of Illinois), Francesco Celani (Frascati National Laboratory, ITALY) and David Nagel (George Washington University).

In addition, while not listed on the ICCF-17 web site, Infinite Energy magazine is reporting that Defkalion Green Technolgies and Brillioun Energy will be making presentations at the conference. IE’s web site reports, ‘Representatives from Defkalion will make two presentations: A technical presentation entitled “Technical Characteristics & Performance of the Defkalion Hyperion Model 0 Module” and a general presentation on “The Potential Contribution of LENR in Resolving the World’s Energy Problems.” Robert Godes, the President and Chief Technology Officer of Brillouin Energy, will make a presentation on their technical results and also participate in the theory panel.’

So it’s looking to be a very interesting event. Noticeably absent from the list of attendees is Andrea Rossi, probably the most widely discussed person working on the LENR field at the moment — but given his preference for working alone on his own terms it is not really surprising that he wouldn’t want to be there.

I thought the following segment from the conference’s welcome message was very well stated and worth repeating here.

“Cold Fusion” has sometimes been referred to as an example of bad science. We agree. It was bad science when Galileo agreed with Copernicus that the Earth orbited the sun and he was charged with heresy and placed under house arrest It was bad science with Roemer announced that contrary to the prevailing belief, the speed of light was not infinite but was actually 186,000 miles per second. He was ridiculed by the scientific establishment and driven out of a scientific career. It was bad science when doctors continued to go from patient to patient without washing their hands, leading to childbirth mortality rates as high as 28% even after clinical studies had shown that washing between patients could significantly reduce mortality. It wasn’t until many years later after Pasteur had identified bacteria that could be transmitted from patient to patient that hand-washing was widely adopted. These are just three examples of a long list of’bad science.”

In each of these cases.it took in excess of 20 years after the initial announcement and compelling experimental evidence before the mainstream scientific establishment accepted the change. In this light/cold fusion’is another example of bad science. And as with the examples listed above, after more than 20 years it is getting harder to deny the experimental evidence of “cold fusion.” We believe “cold fusion” is well on its way to becoming an accepted scientific fact and that ICCF-17 will be a pivotal event in answering the question of whether “cold fusion” can become the safe, low-cost nuclear energy source to meet the world’s growing energy demand

  • Li

    Imagine, you discovered a brand new animal, a wolf, and you did not see before anything else but chicken, and now you try to describe that wolf with chicken body parts and functions…something similar happens here, where one have to accept entanglement, spooky action at distance – allowed and predicted by 1930’s Quantum Mechanics, multidimensional universe, vacuum as an wall, to dark matter and energy, multi-dimensional bodies, conservation of some theorems and axioms – reinterpreting and rewrite of some parts of physics texts, create extensions – as classical, relativistic, super-dimensional etc.
    A good research in this field will bring not only energy but more other capabilities…teleportation? substance manipulation, aso. Is just the beginning.
    Keep your mind open and do not slip into extremes!

  • GreenWin

    Frank, if there was something impermissible to my last post re NTT’s sale of a cold fusion kit… would you kindly tell me so as to avoid the error in future?? The links to Seattle Times and Fukushima Project??

    • GreenWin

      Never mind – apologies…

  • john E

    An International Conference on LENR or Cold Fusion is such an excellent device for a conspiracy narrative. What an perfect event for the bad guys to identify emerging experts, plant information or, God forbid, target large numbers of competent proponents of the new technologies for elimination.

    Or brainwash them into submission with fluoridated cocktails.

    But I’d love to see something truly noteworthy result from this event.

    • jacob

      john E,that’s how it always works,some speeches ,some applause,then discredit, difficulty to bring it to market, because of instability,uneven reactions and something along the line and more BS and you get frustrated that there is no common goal to improve conditions of humanity to bring abundance to all ,which is our right and we are predestined to have abundance ,and if that is not the case ,then we live on a prison planet and have no rights at all,among the thousands of other worlds that exist in the universe,we fail to recognize that we are a colony or colonies of other worlds, that most species of life forms are imported from other worlds,including plants,the sunflower is originally from the planet Venus,who happens to team with live forms,in and out.and according to our peers has a sulfuric acid atmosphere ,did anyone go and check bit out?
      IT is just more coverup upon coverup and it has to stop,the fact that all planets are hollow including our sun,six planets are inhabited in our solar system,and we are the planet for dummies,that still believe we are from the monkey,even the monkey is imported from another world,even dolphins only showed up in 1943 originating from a planet in the Sirius Binary Star system ,the ancient people knew about the significance of the stars and don’t forget you have been misled by science a long time ago,we have over 60 million Germans living in the inner earth,just do a little research about hollow planets,and you will realize, we are not alone,LENR works,and it work because our Sun shines because of it,it is by design of the universal Creator,and that design is perhaps billions of years old,how old is our own history? what 10000 years and we are the most intelligent race in the universe ,I think certainly not.

      LENR works

  • Pingback: ICCF-17 Shaping Up to be Notable Event | ColdFusion | Cold Fusion | Free Energy !()

  • s

    I’ll make a prediction as to the way many of the presentations at the conference will proceed: Data perhaps showing a small or intermittent LENR effect might be presented. Then they will say more design work and further testing is required. (rinse and repeat at the next conference)

    • jacob

      hahaha,you are soooo right,s

    • robiD

      I’ll make another prediction:
      Defkalion GT will announce an apparatus with COP > 10 and 20kW power output continuous functioning, so everyone like you will finally shut up.
      We’ll see who is right 😉

      • Bigwilly

        They are going to announce that they can do that?????

        Great!!!! Here is my own announcement. I invented a “shoe reactor”. It has a COP of sqrt(-1)! And produces 21kW! So what do you think about that?

        BW

        • Andrew Macleod

          Wow! You seem very angry at something.

        • robiD

          I think that Defkalion will show a prototype by July or maybe August with several independent verifications.
          Could you do the same with your “shoe reactor”?
          You still have about two months (~60 days). You’d better run to work (and keep in mind the independent verifications, I don’t believe in your reactor without them). 😉

        • Bigwilly

          You think they will show a prototype in July or August maybe eh? Why then? Gut feeling its right around the corner? History of kept promises? Anything? Oh, noting.

          Well in that case expect my shoe reactor to have a prototype in July or maybe August with several independent verification’s also.

          BW

      • s

        Try to refrain from telling people to “shut up”. Everyone’s opinion is allowed. I believe cold fusion/LENR is real. I just don’t believe any consumer LENR device will be on the market in less than 5 years. It has already been almost 1/3 of 5 years since the Jan 2011 claims and still no independent verification by a respected scientific institution.

  • GreenWin

    Here is an item that will cause pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth from skeptos. In 1992, well after the world had been misdirected by “experts” (e.g. Huizenga, Parker, Ballinger, etc.)calling cold fusion a fraud – a little Japanese company began to offer for public sale a Cold Fusion Kit. These kits were designed to reproduce hard evidence of LENR effect found by Dr. Eiichi Yamaguchi – cold fusion pioneer.

    The name of that little Japanese Company? Nippon Telephone and Telegraph.

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921127&slug=1526892

    Where were all the skeptos when this obviously fraudulent, flim flam, snake-oil-selling (no offense Mr. kirvit) company offered to take money up front before even assembling their product??? DSM???

    BTW, Dr. Yamaguchi is Chair of the Fukushima Project documenting “TEPCO’s Criminal Error and The Media’s Responsibility.” Another nail in fission’s coffin.

    http://www.fccj.or.jp/node/7296

  • Ivan Mohorovicic

    From 22passi: http://22passi.blogspot.fr/2012/06/convegno-sulle-lenr-montecitorio.html

    On July 2nd there will be a LENR meeting at Montecitorio in Rome. By the way, Montecitorio is the seat of the Italian chamber of deputies (Link on Wikipedia).

    There is not much more information at the moment, but I think the location of this event is quite interesting.

    • timycelyn

      Rossi posted a link to an Italian article about it on his blog: http://ildemocratico.com/2012/06/12/fusione-fredda-scilipoti-porta-il-dibattito-a-palazzo-marini/

      My translator couldn’t cope with the slightly flowery style, and I’m not much wiser now.

      Any better quality translation would be appreciated!

      Cheers

      Tim

      • Ivan Mohorovicic

        Only the first paragraph is relevant to this LENR meeting, and not much info is added to what is on the previous 22passi link (essentially that this event was made possible by member-of-italian-parliament Domenico Scilipoti). I very much doubt this will be about Rossi and Focardi’s E-Cat as it’s stated there. From a comment on 22passi it looks like there will be Srivastava and Celani, so we can pretty much imagine what will be discussed about.

        The rest appears to be a long rambling on recent happenings on the politics of LENR, with absolutely no new information despite the huge amount of text, from what I’m able to understand.

  • georgehants

    Until science grows up and realises the obvious, that opinion on these pages is fun and interesting chat, but has no meaning for science, only the way it is carried out.
    No opinion from anybody, be it the pope or a pauper is to be taken seriously in science, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence mixed with Facts, Facts, Facts is all that matters.
    Any theory is a good theory until proven wrong and not just dismissed by incompetent frauds, as with Cold Fusion and many other subjects.
    No bloody “expert opinions” but research, research research.

    • Bigwilly

      Hi George,

      While I am not on board with completely lambasting science i do agree with you that the only thing that can be relied upon is evidence and facts. Specifically independent verification.

      Sometimes I have trouble understanding why many commenters on this site seem to blindly support Rossi and others with none of the above first.

      As it has been discussed before I am doubtful of any claims of levitation, walking on water or other extraordinary claims without the prerequisite facts and evidence.

      BW

      • georgehants

        Bigwilly, leaving any scientist to research any subject without denial and abuse is fair.
        As long as one does not say scientifically that something is or is not True before all the Evidence is in, and even then one must be open-minded as future research may change the Evidence.
        Denial and abuse without the final evidence is a crime against humanity and even then is very rarely justified, unless clear fraud is proven as with the Cold Fusion denial.
        I see no blind support, just support of another Rebel scientist who until proven wrong deserves every help against the corrupt establishments.
        If Rossi is a fraud nothing lost by supporting him (assuming you are not daft enough to put in cash without your own research) but if he is genuine every unjust word against him shows a psychological problem in the attacker.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        There is only one way the two masters, entrepreneurial economics and scientific evidence, can be served: A commercially available E-Cat that saves the consumer money. I am betting on Rossi.

    • http://www.american-reporter.com Joe Shea

      George, you may be underestimating the degree to which facts are driving and not driving science. Underlying the entire theoretical basis for these new technologies is the raging debate in which quantum physics – the physics of ‘almost’ – is pitted against classical physics – the physics of ‘exactly’ – and neither side is showing any willingness to give. You can’t have a hydrino reactor, such as has been amply demonstrated by Dr. Randell Mills of BlackLightPower, or LENR, as demonstrated by Rossi, Brillouin, Schwartz, Hegelstein, et alii, with quantum physics. So it’s not just a matter of facts and evidence, but of scientific “opinion” as to which of these two approaches are the true catechism of science. It’s one of the reasons cold fusion can’t be allowed in the US Patent Office, too – they are quantum people, and admit no classical intruders.

      • georgehants

        Hi Joe, Ha, can be confusing, but I am referring to facts and Evidence against dumb-brained opinion in general.
        The Quantum is reality, but is close, after 60 years of neglect by most of main-stream science, completely unknown.
        What is known is that it is outside of all classical knowledge therefore a new way of thinking is involved, that has been in debate from the time of the wonderful Quantum pioneers.
        Theories and Evidence still lead to facts, it is just that these facts are not consistent with known classical science and confusion between the two needs to be avoided.
        When classical thinking scientists say something is impossible, they seem completely unaware that the World is Quantum and anything is possible.

      • Barry

        Hi Joe, Thanks for trolling on my video on E-Cat News. A word of advice, either be a troll or be a reporter, but the two don’t mix together very well. Barry Simon

      • jacob

        Joe shea,you are a reporter and you are looking for facts,but can you explain why there is a hush hush attitude in the news papers and media about LENR that could,I said could, be so ground braking to change our dependence of oil. Does it really matter if all the’ evidence and proof’ is in.
        Would it drop the price of crude overnight if it was only openly discussed on TV.
        come on Joe,think about it.
        how about even just the entertainment value and ratings,what about the ratings Joe,is it not all about the ratings.
        I remember back in the 80’s ,when ABC ran a story about the corruption of the CIA, the pressure was put on ABC and they were threatened and their broadcasting license would be revoked ,if they did not sell out to this new company that was founded by the CIA’s Director,even oil is covered under national security ,so is news,news is used for propaganda.

        • Bigwilly

          If the news papers and media devoted lots of time to everything that is purely text based or circumstantial evidence they would be inundated stories that will never come to light.

          There is no media cover up. The media is just people like us. Motivated by personal self interest, (money), so don’t expect them their actions to be based off altruism.

          BW

          • jacob

            dream on BW,you have been cleverly fooled and not know it,your time will come,when one day you will realize it,no offense,but sincere regret.

          • Bigwilly

            What time do you speak of Mr. Jacob? One day I will suddenly realize that all of the media is being controlled by some unseen puppeteer? Who would be doing it this time? Big oil, evil science establishment, patho-skeptics, asphalt tycoons, round earth theorist or money grubbing bankers perhaps.

            I highly doubt it. Newspapers are not in the business of making newspapers believe it or not. They are in the business of making money. Same with every other business. McDonalds does not give a crap about hamburgers, they only want to maximize profits.

            Some may demonize this motivation but I believe they fail to understand economics and what civilization is built upon.

            I would suggest these people start their own company and instead of focusing on maximizing profits they align the company to altruistic pursuits. If they can still afford their mortgage, material costs and pay salary then more power to them and I will gladly applaud their success.

            Thanks for the reply,
            BW

    • AstralProjectee

      If Albert Einstein relied purely off of facts without some curiosity, hunches, and imagination he would have never been able to conceive of the theory of relativity through those facets.

      When science if first being discovered it often times relies and hunches and curiosity and and imagination. When you combine those things to test, and study, to get evidence and proof that is truly extraordinary way of doing science. That I think will prove to be the best way of doing science.

      Peace!

  • Pingback: ICCF-17 Shaping Up to be Notable Event | E-Cat News Live Feed()

  • georgehants

    From New Scientist, anything to do with Cold Fusion?

    Mysterious electrical bursts warn of material collapse
    Inexplicable flashes of electricity burst out of powdery materials seconds before they form cracks and fail. If better understood, the flashes could be monitored to forewarn of earthquakes, concrete bridge collapses or failures in the ceramic components of engines, such as turbine blades.
    Troy Shinbrot of Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey, and colleagues discovered the flashes by studying small avalanches created in the lab by swirling powders, such as flour, in revolving cylinders. Electrical charges as large as 500 volts were detected up to 4.5 seconds before the avalanches occurred.
    The team found that the bursts originated from tiny flaws in the structure of the densely packed powder. These propagated towards the surface as the cylinder revolved, eventually resulting in a crack that sheared off a portion of the powder from the main body.
    It is well known that failing materials, and earthquakes, release electrical signals. What’s
    new, Shinbrot says, is the discovery that the discharges are triggered by structural flaws preceding the failure itself. The researchers saw the same thing in powders used to make pharmaceuticals.
    They have no explanation as yet but have ruled out a build-up of static electricity, chemical production of electricity and pressure effects.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21913-mysterious-electrical-bursts-warn-of-material-collapse.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

    • Wes

      Sonoluminescence caused by the Casimir effect as swirling particles shear off. Rutgers should stick to the study of football.

    • Ged

      Nothing to do with cold fusion. Just showing the electrostatic interactions between the powder grains give off energy as they start to break their associations before failing and avalanching. It’s a cool early warning system potentially, not that 4.6 seconds gives much of a warning; but the earth should give an electric field prior to an earthquake by this hypothesis; and that might be detectable. (Indeed, ionization of the stratosphere above the site of an earthquake appears to happen prior to the event. May also explain how animals can sense one coming, through a change in electrostatics. All that fur is great at sensing atmospheric charges).

      • http://www.american-reporter.com Joe Shea

        If you ever drive I-10 west near Fontana, if an earthquake is near you will see “ground flashes,” as I think they are called, from somewhere in the distant fields and valleys of Orange County, Calif., just south of Los Angeles County. I have seen them and reported them just prior to (if memory serves) the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.

    • GreenWin

      This, sonoluminescence, piezonuclear, have nothing at all to do with cold fusion. Except they produce strange effects. So did my mother-in-law. “Sono” luminescence refers to acoustic waves collapsing micrometer sized bubbles of gas resulting in hot plasma.

  • georgehants

    Pekka, From last page if you missed.
    One of the first uses being considered is the simulation on quantum events that are very difficult to observe because of experimental limitations.
    This would open-up many areas of materials science and certainly Cold Fusion to computer simulation.
    Quantum Photosynthesis etc. could be simulated as very difficult to observe directly any Quantum event.
    The Laser, I remember was the invention that had no use when first discovered.

    Superconductivity Quantum simulation.
    Nature Physics | Article
    Quantum simulation of the wavefunction to probe frustrated Heisenberg spin systems.
    http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v7/n5/full/nphys1919.html

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      Thanks, I saw it

  • Torbjörn

    “Update:

    I sent the following letter to David Nagel (and to Melich)

    Professor Nagel,

    People have connected you to a third-party testing of Defkalions Hyperions. Is this accurate?

    Any comments and observations of the technology? Does it live up to Defkalions claims?

    Kind regards,

    xxx

    and got the response:

    Hello Per,

    I have no comments now.

    But, thanks for your inquiry.

    Dave

    /Per Kylemark”

    http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=483&start=40#p20832

    • Ged

      In other words: “Yes, I was connected with third-party testing. No, I can’t comment as I’m under a non-disclosure agreement.”

    • Blanco69

      Per,
      Maybe Dave Nagel offered only a terse reply because you smooched in with 3 kisses at the end of your note. 🙂

  • M D Smith

    ” Bad Science” are the words used from the perspective of those that do not agree, such as those of today that call LENR or cold fusion, “Junk Science”. No matter what anyone calls it the fact will eventually pan out and the truth will be accepted by those with an open mind to creation. “We are what we think we are”.

  • M D Smith

    ” Bad Science” are the words used from the perspective of those that do not agree, such as those of today that call LENR or cold fusion, “Junk Science”. No matter what anyone calls it the fact will evintually pan out and the truth will be accepted by those with an open mind to creation. “We are what we think we are”.

  • http://dcphp.com Robyn

    Good article, and very glad that you are keeping them coming.

    But I don’t know about the “bad science” quote. You say it is “very well stated”, but I don’t think so. I mean, I can read its sentiment, but not because it is a logically structured sentence.

    It gives three examples of “bad science”, meaning that it was counter to prevailing belief, but ultimately correct. (1) “Earth orbited the sun”, (2) “speed of light was not infinite”. These make sense.

    But (3) makes no sense at all: “It was bad science when doctors continued to go from patient to patient without washing their hands.”

    That actually was bad science.

    It should have said something like: “Ignaz Semmelweis washing his hands between patients was “bad science”” – because that went against the prevailing practice.

    Anyway, aside from this quip, keep up the good work, and thanks again.

    • Salazar

      That’s not what “bad science” is referring to.

      It’s referring to:
      1) heresy
      2) ridiculed by the scientific community
      3) continued to not wash hands even after clinical studies showing they should

      It’s not Galileo, Roemer, or whoever conducted those clincal studies that were conducting bad science, it was those people ignoring them.

    • Lu

      Actually if you read about the Roemer and the speed of light saga, I believe the bad science reference is quite a stretch–so much so that I would say it is incorrect. Roemer’s notion while controversial was generally accepted. His career also appears to have not suffered any negative effects because of his theory and went on to be quite accomplished in many areas. Disclaimer: All this based on what I read in Wikipedia!

      I think the cold fusion community has a bit of a persecution complex.

      • GreenWin

        Lu, you make valid points. Arcane issues such as speed of light tend to have less emotion attached than, e.g. energy or heliocentricity. To accept cold fusion is to prove the “ignorance” of a rather large body of hot fusionists and accepted physics.

        Likewise with heliocentricity. The Church and its scientists relied on the egocentric notion of earth-centricity. Proving Church and its scientists wrong would cause great shame and discredit.

        Of course evolved thinkers know there is no shame to be found wrong. Learning is accepting the dissolution of old ideas and replacing them with new.

        The pack-mentality attacks against Fleischmann and Pons mirrors those of the past. The vicious defensiveness of the attack IS reason for shame on the science community and its leaders.

      • GreenWin

        I would add that Olaf Roemer’s calculation challenged Kepler, Descarte and the science community’s belief in infinite light speed.

        “Initially, Roemer’s suggestion was hooted at. It took another half century for the notion to be accepted. In 1729 the British astronomer James Bradley’s independent confirmation of Roemer’s measurements finally ended the opposition to a finite value for the speed of light. Roemer’s work, which had split the scientific community for 53 years, was finally vindicated.”

        • Lu

          Your quote seems to show up on a lot sites like bibleforms, godtalk, freejesus. Truth is the truth but I wonder again who is origninally making this assessment?

          Roemer’s calculation was an estimate and there were problems with it as well. Despite this Hyugans and many scientists including none other than Isaac Newton accepted it early.

          Science despite what some people think is about opinions (versus Truth) and as such it will always generate a whole range of reactions, scientifically based and otherwise. It still appears to me that Roemer’s calcualtion was generally accepted as true and later refined and proven (in the scientific sense)

          • Ged

            History is written by the victors. History books closer to an event seem to highlight the controversy more than history books that come far after an event. I’ve seen this myself even in my life time. Why would the scientific community want to highlight a disagreement (reasonable one too, as evidence is necessary to overturn hypotheses, so it took a build up to overturn the infinite light hypothesis)?

            That said, it’s hard to see what the truth is in this. Looking this up myself, even reputable .edu sites seem to emphasize the “good” events in different ways. Roemer did leave the scientific community, there’s no doubt about that, and became the chief of a city police force (what a career change!).

            Why did that happen? Everyone is glossing over why he left science, and just saying he did great things: but at the time were his efforts noticed for what they were? How did the peers physically around him, whom we may not even remember, treat him during his science days for his theories? Look at how the tone of voice for many people even here is. Would history remember vitriolic comments against someone who later is shown to be correct for the ideas they viciously attacked?

            I guess it’s impossible for us to know, so not too useful to talk about.

          • Lu

            History may indeed be written by the victors but it seems it is also commonly rewritten on the Internet, e.g. the ICCF introduction and what you have just stated.

            Roemer published his speed of light work in 1676. In 1681 he was appointed Professor of Astronomy at the University of Copenhagen and evidently he was very active as an astronomer. I hardly consider this fact as indicating he left science because of opposition to his theory and this suggestion is just more contrivance.

            Who knows, science probably paid then as much as it does now. Afterwards he served as Royal Mathematician and went on to establish systems of weights, measures, and time, worked for the betterment of the city, and then served the last 5 years of his life as Chief of Police for Coppenhagen.

      • GreenWin

        Lu, it took the Roman Catholic Church 400 years to apologize to Galileo Galilee. Saving face, rewriting history, doctoring data, withholding knowledge are all actions taken by orthodox and dissenter to favor their claims. It’s fair to say that Descarte was the Einstein of his day. And Kepler was a major influence on orthodox science. Both claimed unambiguously the speed of light was infinite.

        And in fact after Roemer’s claim he quit science to become a town mayor. Not exactly Pons & Fleischmann – but they too kept careers while “mainstream science” continued to call them charlatans and frauds.

        Bad science” is really bad behavior on the part of self-appointed experts who are more interested in their gravy trains than scientific truth.

        • GreenWin

          Correction: Galileo Galilea.

  • moab

    @Pete, thanks for the arxiv links

  • Lu

    Interesting now that “Cold Fusion” is being quoted everywhere in the announcement. I wonder how long it will be before the term is dropped in favor of something like LENR, e.g., ICLENR.

    Also interesting is Defklalion’s reference to their product as “Model 0”. Definitely a statement of some sort. This will be very interesting paper/presentation as will as all the others since there are so many different theories and effects that will be discussed.

  • dragon

    So, contrary to the 1000 Italian Scientists that signed against cold fusion research, this Conference will fight to establish that the 1000 Scientists are corrupt, stupid, and not worthy to be called HUMANS.

    • mcloki

      That’s a bit of a jump. There’s no need to escalate this argument to the level of a political argument. Scientists voting against research of any kind seems a bit of a contradiction. Research is done to discover the answer if it is real or not. While cold fusion (LENR) has not been classically proven it has not, as of yet, been classically refuted. Research is warranted.

    • Pete

      Get you facts straight!

      The protest is against badly done science with possible data manipulation and cronyism.

      Here some peer reviews of the piezo publications:
      arxiv.org/abs/0910.3501
      arxiv.org/abs/1205.6418
      arxiv.org/abs/1206.1863

      There are clues that Mr Carpinteri has been using his political relations to secure funding.

      So who is corrupt now?

      • dragon

        Who is corrupt in Italy? Are you for real? EVERYBODY!!!
        And since they are not for LENR, then they are obviously against LENR, no matter how you spin it.

        • Pete

          Ah, generalizations. Not impressed.

    • Filip

      Corruption and stupidity are in intrinsic human caracteristics among other good and bad things.

      • http://www.lenrforum.eu/ Alain

        corruption is not so common.

        more common are dishonest behavior for honest beliefs, unconscious rational denial of annoying fact…

        by the way the italian piezzo scientist seems wrong, if you follow the latest LENR theories. It is not fission that seems the most credible, but electron-capture, neutron capture and alpha/beta-decay.

        Lewis G Larsen have published (on slideshare) some slides on his prefered theory relative to rock break neutrons, lighting neuterons, exploding wire neutrons, solar flare gamma, and classic LENR (electrolytic and gas loading).