“60 Minutes on CNBC” to Feature Cold Fusion

There’s an announcement on the CNBC web site of an upcoming program that will feature cold fusion. There will be a program on Scientific Breakthroughs on Tuesday, July 17th at 9:00 p.m. ET. Here is the description:

Cold Fusion Is Hot Again
A report on cold fusion – nuclear energy like that which powers the sun, but made at room temperatures on a tabletop, which in 1989, was presented as a revolutionary new source of energy that promised to be cheap, limitless and clean but was quickly dismissed as junk science. Today, scientists believe that cold fusion, now most often called low temperature fusion or a nuclear effect, could lead to monumental breakthroughs in energy production.

Now CNBC is a cable financial network, and 60 Minutes is a CBS show, so there must be some kind of partnership between the two companies. The explanation of ’60 Minutes on CNBC’ is, “CNBC brings you the latest on these classic stories with updates and never before seen footage of these award winning business news stories”

It appears from this billing that there will be an update to the 2009 ’60 Minutes’ segment, but probably not a completely new piece. Perhaps some report on progress and developments made in the field in recent years. It’s interesting that this is being featured on a financial network — an indication that someone sees there is the possibility that cold fusion could have an impact on business and the economy.

If you haven’t seen the 2009 CBS piece, it is here.

  • egbert souse

    Whether it is a fusion reaction or a chemical reaction is irrelvant. The important thing is “excess heat”. Heat, voltage , current and power can be measured to 5 decimal places by currently avialable instruments from numerous manufacturers. The expensive intstruments go even further. Whether or not they can explacin it or not, it still exists.

    The fact that it can be replicated sometimes indicates there is something to it. When the researchers understand it fully then they can move forward.

    But to dismiss as BS is being just as blind as those stand accused of promoting “junk science”

  • Doug

    If this is fusion or any type of “nuclear event” it would result in changes in the elements present after the event. Why don’t researchers look for evidence of this kind (which would be incontrovertible) rather than excess energy which 1. is subject to measurement error and 2. might be due to some sort of chemical reaction which of course would have nothing like the energy potential of a nuclear event. If the excess energy appears often enough (as claimed) even if not always, then what is the difference between the materials involved before and after? If that can’t be identified, and there seems no attempt to do so, I have to consider this bs.

  • Moi

    How many times is CBS/60 Minutes going to advertise this cold fusion BS? This is regurgitation of an old story (not reporting of science) that appeared already on 60 Minutes a few years ago & that is based on non-science.

    Cold fusion was debunked YEARS (i.e, decades) ago. Get over it. Do something that is of this century and worth REPORTING on. Do not regurgitate a story from the 80s that involves “science” that has been debunked, not once or twice, but many, many times. Grow up and get with the times CBS. Get reporters who REPORT on something. Stop being lazy. 60 Minutes currently = OLD “news” that we already “reported” on years ago. Not good.

    I learn NOTHING from CBS when it tells a story (rather than reporting) about something that sounded “neato” in the 80s. Decades have gone by and CBS is still “reporting” on the same BS. CBS does not even bother to run a new story, but rather runs an episode from years ago as something “new.” Pathetic. Who approves this cr@p?

    It would be something if cold fusion had been an real science story that CBS reported on 30 (THIRTY) years ago, but it is not. Find science. It is under your noses. Report on science. Actual science. There are stories there. Can you find them , CBS? You have been demonstrating that you can not.

    I dare you to do it, CBS. Find ACTUAL science. And not something that you found in your files from last year or five years ago. Do something NOW. (And do not refer to that f-ing God particle.)

    Sad, CBS. Sad.

    • AstralProjectee

      What will you say if/when cold fusion is proven true?

      • Moi

        The same exact thing if Fairies, Santa Claus, Unicorns, Big Foot, the Boogie Monster and martians on Pluto are proven true.

        • AstralProjectee

          That is totally irrelevant. No. You will find no scientist that says any of those things are true. Well except big foot perhaps. You will not find DARPA or governments recommending research into such things, that is not the case with cold fusion. This is in a different category all together. This is in a category that is much different than all the rest. You see this as black and white. I don’t look at it like that. I don’t evaluate reality as black and white. I view it with possibilities and potentialities.

          In 1,000 years from now I am positive we would have found many things that we currently view as either debunked or not enough evidence to support right now. Things that would be categorized as science fiction now will be reality in the future.

          At the same time I think people like you are needed to keep the believers in check with the need for evidence and proof. So I am one of the few people that agree and disagree with you. I just know that we need more people that will not out right say it’s bunk.

          • Moi

            False. But nice try.

            I could find a scientist that says that Big Foot exists, or God, or a miracle or….whatever. That does not make it true. Science—not scientists–make these things true.

            Cold fusion, like fairies, Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster and the Boogie Man do not exist. Some friggin’ scientist might say that they do, but until SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES that they do exist, they do not.

            • AstralProjectee

              I don’t have much to say to say to someone that is close minded except “we will see soon”.

            • Dan Woodward

              Humans used fire for thousands of years before scientists discovered the principal of oxidation. “Cold Fusion” or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions does occur. The nickel-to-copper reactions in the Rossi E-CAT are an example. By the way, Rossi’s company has delivered a 1 megawatt system to a still secret USA customer, who reportedly ordered 12 more. By the way, you can buy one right now.

  • georgehants

    Don’t be discouraged by a failure. It can be a positive experience. Failure is, in a sense, the highway to success, inasmuch as every discovery of what is false leads us to seek earnestly after what is true, and every fresh experience points out some form of error which we shall afterwards carefully avoid.
    John Keats (1795 – 1821)

    • admin
      • Barry

        Those Brits sure know how to have a good time.

      • dfnj

        From the ashes, from the ashes….

    • Daniel Steward

      “I have not failed 700 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 700 ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work.” Edison

  • Bård Havre

    It would be interesting to discuss the show after we all have seen it.

    • dfnj

      It’s probably a repeat of the first one.

      • Moi

        Exactly! Thanks, dfnj.

        We saw this same exact, damn non-science show a couple of years ago. CBS just dipped into its archives and pressed “Go” ’cause it got lazy & thought we forgot about the first run of this episode.

        NO ONE has been able to provide “interesting,” more less, actual, scientific evidence of cold fusion since the first time CBS ran this cr@p. (Note that this ignores the “fact” that this cold fusion crud was first “reported” on in the 1980’s, more less last night! Is CBS gonna do a “report” on how touching a cup that an AIDS patient touched will transmit HIV to someone else? And then replay that story in 2015 when they are bored and cannot be bothered to actually do any research/reporting?)

  • Petrol

    My guess based on having watched 60 minutes for a number of years they will simply re-air the same episode. Every summer they go on vacation and replay re-runs. There is rarely any new content at all on 60 minutes until after labor day.

    • Moi

      You said exactly the truth, Petrol.

  • georgehants

    Main-line “opinion expert” scientific assessment of Cold Fusion.
    By Kirk L. Shanahan
    Aiken, S.C.
    Chemical & Engineering News
    Copyright © 2012 American Chemical Society
    Critical review is at the heart of scientific progress. When a critic posits an alternative explanation, the appropriate response should not be to misconstrue the criticism and then ignore it. The consistent use of this tactic is the clearest sign that CF researchers are in fact pseudoscientists, pantomiming the behavior of good scientists.
    Rossi’s unwillingness to conduct adequate scientific exploration of his “E-Cat” is likewise a dead giveaway that all is not right in Bologna. The proffered demonstrations and explanations leave the viewer completely unsure if what is being assumed by Rossi does in fact occur. Until such ambiguity is removed, readers should remain cautious, especially given that Rossi favors a “low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR)” or “CF” explanation for his results. Hopefully, CF is really not being “revived,” as it was and is an excellent example of junk science.

    • Another superannuated nitwit pontificating without even bothering to check the facts. The author seems to be completely unaware of any of the developments that do not involve Rossi, or is ignoring them for his own reasons. This kind of thing is just looking increasingly stupid.

      • georgehants

        Peter did you read the whole article, not just one, but Edgar Müller Prilly, Switzerland, gives his “expert opinion”.
        Unfortunately as with many scientists, lets not look at the Facts or Evidence, we are far to clever for that.
        Another couple of names to be recorded in the history of Cold Fusion.

    • un passante

      his argument seems to be: they didn’t accept my explanation thus it must be junk science because the only appropriate response to my criticism is to embrace it and laude the good scientist I am.

      he’s also hopeful no funds are given. I sense fear there and you don’t fear something you’re sure it will end giving no results.

    • Claes

      Well, Rossi, as far as I know, is not pretending to be a scientist. It would be different if he tried to get an article accepted to Science about it. But he’s clearly not interested in that.

      • georgehants

        Claes, do you not think that it is the Evidence that should be printed in Science and who writes it is irrelevant.
        I am not suggesting that Rossi has shown the Evidence only that any academic qualifications, in many cases mean nothing.
        I think the couple of academic clowns who wrote the above article are ample proof that qualifications in science seem to be just a license to make a fool of oneself.

    • Nixter

      Interesting catch, it would be wise to start collecting the names of these well educated, knowledgeable “high level” skeptics now, so that they can be contacted after the devices have been verified. I will like to hear what they have to say then, most will recant their previously stated positions, but there will always be a few holdouts who won’t be able to admit that they could be so utterly, completely wrong. They may say that because the process has not been fully explained yet, it is not scientifically valid and therefore cannot be really working. Makes no sense, I know, but I predict at least one instance of this logic path will be seen.

      It would be interesting to send out inquiries to all the well known Physicists in the field, to get their opinions on Cold Fusion and LENR, get them on the record now,.. firmly. In a few months, they will not be able to deny their true stated positions,.. history will not be denied.

      I particularly remember the condescending tone used against Pons and Fleischmann in 1989. The term,”Junk Science” was used in a slanderous and unprofessional manner, with malice and forethought. These insidious scientific miscreants did their very best to shut down anything remotely associated with “Cold Fusion” as “Junk Science” for years with religious fervor. I think it appropriate to give them a small taste of their own poisoned medicine.

    • GreenWin

      It should be noted that Shanahan is an long term employee of Savanah River Technology Center where materials for nuke weapons were fabricated. Savanah River is now a National Lab and continues to survive on fissile nuclear materials research and development. Clearly he sees the advance of LENR a threat to his high priest domain and livelihood.

      Interestingly, it is these very facilities that will be forced to adopt LENR or be phased out – as fission nuclear power becomes obsolete and need for WMDs decreases.

    • Daniel Steward

      Seems like these same basic arguments were made regarding powered human flight back when the Wright brothers were claiming to have flown.

  • kwhilborn

    I sent 60 minutes an email about breakthroughs and controversy since 2011. Let’s hope they do a good job. I have doubts, but have been constantly embracing disappointing news on this topic.

  • Tyler


    I think this will first air this Sunday night, July 15 on CBS 7pm EST. The airing on CNBC on the 17th (at midnight EST) will most likely be a rebroadcast from this Sunday’s show.

    No info posted yet on CBS 60 minute site, I imagine they will update it in the next day or two with the July 15 show info.

    should be an interesting watch,


  • astralprojectee

    No doubt they are doing this show partially because Andrea Rossi and Defkalion. They are the ones stirring up talk about cold fusion.

    • Omega Z


      I was thinking that for about 2 seconds,

      Then I remembered Robert Duncan was on the Original 60 Minutes. He is now Managing the LENR research at the University of Missouri by way of a donation from Kimmel.

      He’s also been pushing hard for Federal research funds to expand the LENR research. It’s quite possible he will be the mainstay for this episode. I also wouldn’t doubt that he contacted them or possibly they became aware of his work & called him.

      Rossi & Others will likely be mentioned in this episode as a perspective of some of the research being done by others.

      It’s importance is in making more of the masses aware of what’s happening.

      • astralprojectee

        In saying what I said I realized CNBC may not even mention them.

        • daniel maris

          I think that’s very likely. Media folk are pretty sedentary these days…I suspect they won’t travel too far from the starting point.

          • AstralProjectee

            They are sedentary these days because it costs so much to money to travel and do good investigative reporting.

            Newspapers are hardly surviving these days. We don’t have really good investigative journalists like we use to because of it.

            I think it would actually be a good idea after we get out of debt to have a taxpayer funded reporting. But every person can decide who we want our tax payer money to support. Because lets face it without good journalism it will never be the same without it.


  • Jimr

    K , if we like it or not ,it is something for the future. This is not going to happen over night as much as we would like it immediately. Rossi’s one million at $150 per Ecat is not going to happen and we should all realize that fact. Until engeers and physicist know exactly what is happening they will not be made available.

    • Jimr

      Sorry for some reason this was not posted under a response to K.

      • K

        AR needs a patent. Without patents, every Lenr investment in production and marketing is pointless. The patents block everyting for now.

        • daniel maris

          Nonsense. There are plenty of examples of people making money from unpatented new technology. No one had a patent on the internet or the web as far as I am aware.

          If Rossi is first out of the blocks it will take years for people to catch up with him.

          • Omega Z


            You invent something & market it. I’ll copy it, patent it & come after you for infringement. It could happen. It has happened.

            However Rossi has a patent pending, so he does have some protection. But he also needs UL certification. The certification provides limited liability against lawsuits. It’s hard to make win-able claims for liability unless you can prove faulty manufacturing that strays from UL guidelines. It’s not total protection. Just Limited liability.

            In most jurisdictions, you can’t even market some types of products without UL certification. The E-cat definitely would fall in that category. Safety Codes require water heaters to be Certified. So does home owner Insurance.

            If you installed 1 at your own risk & it burnt your house down, You eat the cost. If it burns your neighbors down. That’s your cost, & you’ll probably be facing many legal charges among financial loss & anyone who’s harmed/injured or killed. Most likely you’ll face legal charges even if it’s just your home that burns.

            • JBJ

              “You invent something & market it. I’ll copy it, patent it & come after you for infringement. It could happen. It has happened.”

              Do you have an example? I would think that novelty and prior use considerations would trip up that scenario.

            • daniel maris

              WIth your $1.5 billion per annum revenue you counter-sue the a*s* off them. Doesn’t matter whether you have the law on your side, you tie them up in legal knots. But as JBJ suggests I can’t think of any such examples of things going wrong in that way. Anyway, Rossi does have a patent – an Italian one.

  • artefact

    Harry Veeder postet that on Vortex:

    actually its closer to 37 minute mark.

    On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
    > Sterlling Allan interviews Brilliuon Energy.
    > At 39 minutes someone says CBS is talking to Mckubre about following
    > up their 2009 story on cold fusion .
    > http://www.mevio.com/episode/313695/fen.120417

    So there should be at least Brillouin Energy in that report, maby some other also.

  • georgehants

    ScienceInsider – breaking news and analysis from the world of science policy
    Romney, Obama Campaigns Give Clean Tech Research Some Bipartisan Love
    by David Malakoff on 11 July 2012, 4:12 PM
    Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have plenty of differences over how they’d promote energy development and protect the environment. But this morning, surrogates for the two campaigns joined hands in supporting the 3-year-old Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), an innovative effort at the U.S. Department of Energy to pump public money into studies of potentially transformational clean energy technologies. Representatives from both campaigns repeatedly lauded ARPA-E’s nimble model for funding high-risk basic research during a debate on energy and environmental policy sponsored by Business Roundtable.
    Read all at —

    • GreenWin

      Thanks George. “Bipartisan Love” is the subtitle and it’s nice to see at least one issue the two parties can support. Of course ARPA-e is where $20-50M for LENR research should come from this year. Considering the $$billions taxpayers have been fleeced for by hot fusioneers – a miniscule budget to research LENR given the mountain of evidence for excess heat seems reasonable.

      But what about cold fusion opponents has ever been reasonable?? And while at it, the President (if handlers allow) should issue an order for independent review of LENR patents.

  • dfnj

    OT: Cool article titled, “3-D printing could remake U.S. manufacturing”


  • K

    I’m afraid this will be again a message that LENR is “something for the future”, and so slowing down the real implementation. There is no need of scientists to “believe” the next Iphone is coming up. The factories are making them! Companies that are investing on the implementation of lenr, that would be great news. Owners of all kind of energy demanding facilities should receive the message that it is for sale NOW, and that they can contribute by buying the devices, but not that it still is in an “evolving experimental phase”.

    • Ged

      Airing a reprise of an investigative news show segment from another network on a business oriented network says something pretty important. The time slot, network and day are all hitting squarely at the business/investor demographic.

      So why do that? Why try to peak interest by businesses? For the networks, they expect to get a lot of revenue through ads and viewership this way; but that requires that the content must be something businesses will be interested in watching. Especially investors.

      They’ve got something, and they want to show it off. And they want to get the economic machine moving on this. It’s a very calculated move, like all network decisions are, let alone a cross network collaboration.

      • K

        Yes, it is important. But also what will be the tone of the message. Anyway, the losers will be solar and wind, my guess.

        • zvibenyosef

          The losers will definitely be oil coal and gas.

          • Oil and gas will continue to be used for some time, so production of these will carry on at a reduced level. Oil will be needed for plastics and chemicals indefinitely, although gas will probably fade away slowly. Coal mining will definitely be a goner.

            The biggest loser will be nuclear power, as not only the plant will have to be written off, but someone (probably taxpayers) will have to underwrite the costs of decommissioning and dismantling power stations, processing and disposal of waste, and long term hazardous waste storage. (Although new LENR related technologies may eventually allow remediation of radioactive waste.)

        • JBJ

          I had that thought recently, that LENR would be hard on solar and wind. Solar and wind are marginal economically, and require extensive installation and somewhat extensive maintenance. If I can a service contract to install new hydrogen tablets and nickel cores every few months, at some fraction of my current gas and electric bill, why wouldn’t I?

          • mcloki

            Solar PV will find a place in the energy future. It might be for more mobile applications (road signage) but it will be around.

  • My guess is that this information is wrong in some respects. CNBC is not going to start using the “60 Minutes” rubric and cachet any more than CBS is going to start using the “American Greed” name; those are both highly protected. In reality, I think one of two things will happen: CNBC will do its own show, or 60 Minutes will re-run the cold fusion piece from last year. There will be no “60 Minutes on CNBC” unless CNBC has licensed the segment. It would be great if they produced their own. Unfortunately, any segment on CNBC is going to take a highly skeptical and negative approach because its own advertisers are the folks whose ox will get gored by cold fusion and were probably the people who suggested it.

    • Ged

      It’s always possible CNBC contracted the 60 Minutes team through CBS for a special, and they will split the advertising revenue.

      Alternatively, this also makes sense if CBS didn’t have a good time slot they felt for airing the segment to maximize revenue. Tuesday at 9 pm EST should have a high business viewership, more than a 60 Minutes on Sunday would likely get. Even more so since CNBC is business oriented, unlike CBS.

    • admin

      Here’s the explanation on the web site:

      ““60 Minutes on CNBC” takes you a step further into hard hitting investigative reports, interviews, profiles, and features stories that have made “60 Minutes” required viewing for millions. CNBC brings you the latest on these classic stories with updates and never before seen footage of these award winning business news stories. The program is produced for CNBC by CBS News Productions.”

      Looks like they have worked out a partnership.

    • I think you are right. I was in error when I said they wouldn’t call it “60 minutes in CNBC.” That is exactly what they call it.

    • Don Witcher

      I just watched part of a “60 minute show” with the “60 minute show” format and logo last Tuesday night on CNBC. Also Wikipedia talks about the connection between the CBS show and the CNBC spinoff show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes in the section called “Spin offs”. The west coast time of the show is 9pm. Other time zones may differ. Here’s the CNBC “60 minute” web page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes again for those who didn’t catch it in the blog.

      There will almost have to be some new material in addition to the old show but what the spin will be is anybody’s guess in my opinion. I certainly intend to watch the show.

      • artefact


  • psi

    Yes, it will certainly be interesting to see what they chose to add.

  • astralprojectee

    It would be interesting if they have a surprise interview with Andrea Rossi. LOL

    • Ged

      That would be hilarious. I want to watch it just to see if that happens.

  • D. Glazebrook

    btw, the “old” version is available here:
    After 30 seconds advertising start the 12 minute videoreport.
    Or search on youtube “Cold Fusion Is Hot Again” (Part I and II)

    Some month ago this video was a milestone for me.
    Recommended for all newbies

  • Pachu

    Just to give related people an idea, in KickStarter a project for an “open” console for video games, at 99 u$s (console and gamepad) for free-to-play games has raised 3 million u$s (and growing) in his first day…

    With this project kicking a$$ is not the moment but LENR projects should have a try in kickstarter in 30 days or so…


    Dont u think ?

  • Thomas

    I hope someone will upload the video when it was broadcast …