Chemistry World Editorial Encourages Scientific Debate about ‘Bad Science’ — Cites Cold Fusion

An interesting editorial in the UK’s Royal Society of Chemistry publication Chemistry World by University of Liverpool chemistry professor Mathias Brust encourages scientific journals to address and debate ‘bad science’. Brust’s article, entitled “Safeguarding science against falsehood demands debate”, expresses concern that there is not enough post-publication debate about problematic scientific claims, and feels that science will be strengthened if scientists get involved in robust back and forth discussions so that a thorough examination of new claims can take place.

Brust cites the 1989 cold fusion announcement in the article:

The late Martin Fleischmann, an eminent electrochemist of highest international standing, driven, no doubt, by his unbound enthusiasm for science, announced the discovery of cold nuclear fusion in 1989, together with his colleague Stanley Pons. Their claim had immense global importance and laboratories everywhere started to work on it, some claiming encouraging results, others unable to reproduce the effect. To date no functional cold nuclear fusion reactor has been built, which suggests that the original report was either flawed, or that the data were over interpreted.

Brust seems to be saying that the reaction of the scientific world to the Fleischmann-Pons claim was an example of the way scientists should respond to unusual and new claims — his point in the article is that this type of reaction has typically been the exception rather than the rule. Note, however, that Brust does not appear to be shooting down cold fusion here; he doesn’t call Fleischmann and Pons frauds. The last sentence in the quotation above is a cautious one, and leaves the door open to CF verification.

I think most rational people see the valuable role that science can play in uncovering deception and fraud in science. New claims should be carefully examined and rigorously tested before being adopted — but for science to work properly it is important that the investigators be open minded and clear headed, willing to go where the evidence leads. If scientists are motivated by fear, jealousy, greed, etc., the process doesn’t work.

It makes me wonder what would have happened if the 1989 University of Utah news conference had never taken place, and Pons and Fleischmann had published their findings in a journal and had been able to avoid the media circus that they became caught up in which seemed to polarize the players in the debate. Thankfully the cold fusion torch has not been entirely dropped, and great progress in the field seems to be taking place.

  • psi

    Very nice posting. Thanks for the update. I find the phraseology “the original report was either flawed, or that the data were over interpreted” to be a bit curious. What does he mean by “over interpreted” – it could refer, cunningly, to either F&P or their critics. Curioser and curioser as Alice said.

  • GreenWin

    It is ever so amusing to read these strident, disingenuous editorials written by scientists with unusual proximity to the very subject of their critique. Mathias Brust is active in the field of electrochemical nanomaterials, specializing in in gold nanoparticles and applications in biomedicine. It is fascinating that Dr. Brust studied at University Texas at Austin, in the “well known electrochemistry group of Prof Allen J. Bard.” The very same university where Dr. Thomas Grimshaw wrote the seminal Shaping the Energy Technology Transition
    Moving to a Low-Carbon, Renewable-Energy Economy
    including 48 mentions of cold fusion. http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/20091016_Submitted_LBJ_School.pdf

    The carefully worded language in Dr. Brust’s editorial “to date no functional cold nuclear reactor has been built…” suggests a rather intimate knowledge of nano-metals role in electrochemical fusion. And that great progress has been made leading to a “functional” reactor. Brust’s latest paper is titled, “Electrocatalytic hydrogen redox chemistry on gold nanoparticles.”

    An update on current state of the art whilst masquerading as critique? The soaring cleverness of certain minds never fails to impress.

  • georgehants

    DOE/Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

    Previewing the next steps on the path to a magnetic fusion power plant
    A PPPL physicist details the roadmap and challenges ahead
    Scientists around the world have crossed a threshold into a
    promising and challenging new era in the quest for fusion energy. So
    says physicist George “Hutch” Neilson, director of advanced projects at
    the U.S. Department of Energy’s Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, in
    remarks prepared for the 2013 annual meeting of the American Association
    for the Advancement of Science in Boston.
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/dppl-ptn011713.php

    • GreenWin

      “”The scientific and technical issues for fusion are well known,” said
      Neilson, “but the search for solutions is extremely challenging.”

      Heaven forbid they consider CF as a solution. I’m afraid Mr. Neilson and company have yet to grok the fundamental flaw in their scheme: they do not know how to build a container for their plasma.

  • georgehants

    Has anybody noticed that Rossi is issoR spelt backwards.

  • georgehants

    From Above Top Secret
    Tesla’s scathing response accuses NYT of ‘changing the facts’ in Model S review
    Seems like there is definitely something going on, because one of them
    must be lying, and I dont believe its Elon Musk. The Big Oil’s minions
    caught red handed in a filthy anti-propaganda game against new electric
    vehicles?
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread926375/pg1

    • GreenWin

      Hilarious! Tesla has hard data from the car’s telemetry indicating CLEARLY that the Times reviewer John Broder out and out LIED about his driving experience. He claimed he drove 45MPH when the hard evidence telemetrics recorded 60 – 71MPH!! The New York Times once again proves to be in the pocket of the anti-progressive oilcos, and ICE auto industry.

  • georgehants

    Wonderful day, my daughter is visiting today and as I have been telling her for two years that a marvellous new technology called Cold Fusion is going to change the World, I will have to explain to her Again that, o’dear slight delay but soon it will be here.
    She of course thinks I am crazy and she could be right but I am sure that one day I will be able to say, it has happened.

    • Gerrit

      Well George than I suggest you switch off your computer and enjoy the day.

    • Peter Roe

      You are not alone, George – both my kids and my wife think I lost it some time ago. I have certainly stopped mentioning any possible dates for landmark developments based on Rossi’s statements.

      I think Gerrit’s suggestion may be good advice.

  • MK

    OT: Nicolas Chauvin recommended a book to me in January. Meanwhile I could get hold of it and read it. I would like to strongly repeat that recommendation to everyone who is interested in the topic. The book describes (some) of the work of Tadahiko Mizuno in an understadable, interesting and enlighting way.

    Tadahiko Mizuno Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion.
    ISBN: 1-892925-00-1 . If interested, try (big) online book stores.

  • John L

    Those professors carrying out the independent verification on the Hot Cat could choose to have multiple objectives and scopes.

    (1). They could have chosen to release results/statement verifying that the Hot Cat nuclear reaction is real and that excess heat has been detected beyond uncertainty calculation values. With proper instruments, these measurements would not take long to complete. This would help Rossi, securing his patent quickly and would facilitate the commercialization of the Hot Cat products. And perhaps immediately more research funding/investments would be starting to flow towards other LENR research around the world.

    Or (2). They could choose to do the long detailed/careful way of a peer review method. For example, one group carries out one set of measurements by Optical instruments and they tabulate the results plus uncertainty calculations of all instruments to K=2.99 or higher, then a second group repeats the experiment by Calorimetry method and also repeats uncertainty calculations K=2.99 or higher. Finally they have the first group and second group exchanging all information and starting the peer-to-peer reviewing process, which will take some months.

    Or (3). They could do (2) separately for self-sustained mode and driven mode. This will take even longer.

    Or (4). Repeat (3) for gas fuelled Hot Cat and Electric driven Hot Cat. This requires year to complete.

    The public is secondary to their objectives and scopes; however, will Dr. Rossi patience run out? He knows his potential customer’s order decision will be influenced by the report.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      There are indeed multiple possibilities. One might be that they want to run the reactor long enough to prove its practical ultility value (not quite 6 months, but perhaps 6 weeks).

  • C.T.
    • C.T.

      From the article posted above on Lockheed Martin’s claims:

      “Almost on cue, another company has trotted into the fusion corral: U.S. aerospace stalwart Lockheed Martin.

      Speaking last week at a Google “Solve for X” event (it’s a bit like a
      TED gathering, but organized by the ubiquitous search engine/media
      company), Charles Chase from Lockheed’s “Skunk Works” group described a
      transportable, 100-megawatt fusion machine that he said will be grid
      ready in 10 years and that – here’s a bold claim – could provide all the
      world’s baseload power by 2050.”

      • Neil Taylor

        Why not? Umm, please don’t answer as I have no answer to your answer at the moment….

      • Pekka Janhunen

        They would have the same wall material durability questions with the 14 MeV neutron flux than ITER. We don’t know how materials react to the flux because theory doesn’t tell and the only way to experiment is to build the reactor. In the best case, if their plasma geometry is more economical than ITER (this I don’t know), they might find the answer to the feasibility question sooner or cheaper than ITER. But talking about grid readiness sounds premature.

        Another feasibility issue with hot fusion (reminded by Storms recently on vortex) is that the process is D+T->He4+n and n+Li6->He4+T. The reactor can produce its own tritium only if no neutrons are wasted, which is not possible. To counteract the inevitable neutron loss, they propose to use beryllium which can act a little bit as neutron multiplier. But beryllium is expensive and poisonous and its multiplication factor is low. In ITER the tritium is still made mainly in ordinary fission reactor while they want to study the lithium breeding. The Technical Readiness Level of hot fusion is only 3 while grid readiness would equal 8.

        • C.T.

          Thank you for your input. My scientific knowledge of either type of fusion reaction is limited at best but I do follow your train of thought.

          I was mostly surprised by the timing of the statements and the bold predictions. It would also seem that Lockheed Martin is expecting the complexity of the reactor and rarity of the materials used would give them a powerful lock on the energy industry. To this end cold fusion must seem like a huge threat to their business model.

          The nickel hydrogen cold fusion model certainly seems much less complex and if working models are forth coming soon it lends itself to open source adoption much better than hot fusion.

          Thank you again for the input.

        • psi

          Wow. Great analysis. Thanks.

  • Linda

    Steve W and Paul traded comments about how different it would be if LENR could be weaponized – how true that is!

    Our investment and distribution systems are completely broken. As I’ve said before, this is all that holds us back. We have all the technology we will ever need to create a prosperous future for every human being on earth, EXCEPT we insist on making all of our investment decisions based on short-term PROFIT, not on rational requirements for survival of the species or the planet.

    We need to restructure our economy on a rational collaborative basis, not on an irrational, competitive basis. We need a Manhattan Project, even if it’s only an Open Source crowd-sourced effort, before it is too late.

    • Linda

      Obviously, i’m not talking about making a weapon, i’m talking about the irony of how easy it is for governments to organize to do evil, and how important that people, ordinary people learn how to organize and do good.

      • Peter Roe

        Killing people governments understand right away. Helping people they find rather more difficult to grasp.

  • Demokratinifara

    Well !
    If start they strat with with climate science…. now ther`s a hole field based on bad science. its more of a pseudoscience. Cold fusion/ LENR is experimental

  • Allan Shura

    I think they may be trying to say that those who spread falsehoods about cold fusion were guilty of bad science by not intrepreting the results or experiment conditions properly and false debunking the science with a major ballyhoo.

  • georgehants

    Interesting mainly because I am mentioned.

    http://e-catalyzer.it/e-catalyzer/purificare-lacqua-con-lhot-cat

    • Peter Roe

      Time to be thinking about getting an agent, George! Try not to let international fame go to your head, though.

      • georgehants

        Peter, they say we all get our 5 mins, well that was mine. Ha.

  • georgehants

    ANS Nuclear Cafe
    All Things Nuclear
    Friday Nuclear Matinee: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
    Posted on February 15, 2013 by pbowersox|
    The ANS Nuclear Cafe today brings faithful viewers a short interview with Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA
    Langley Research Center. Zawodny discusses research on “Low Energy
    Nuclear Reactions” at NASA Langley, and the incredible potential of this
    new form of nuclear power—IF theory is validated by experimental results.
    http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/15/nuclear-matinee-low-energy-nuclear-reactions/

    • yamal

      old news. however storm’s comment is interesting: ‘Why is a universally rejected theory being used by NASA is my question?’
      yes, wlt is universally rejected for being implausible and asking a lot more questions than it answers. but storm’s own theories aren’t far off, so what is his point?

      • Jim

        Is that “universally” in the sense of a) “all encompassing”, b) “very large”, c) “excluding minority opinions”, d) “rhetorical dominance posturing”, or e) “attempting to reinforce one’s rhetorical position through exaggeration”?

        • yamal

          don’t ask me. ask storms. my guess is he means universally in the sense of vast majority of scientists ever seriously looking at wlt – including most of the lenr research community.

          • Jim

            You repeated Storm’s “universally”. And then you use “vast majority” … “ever seriously”… “most of”. These are mundane rhetorical devices, generally used in an attempt to imply a particular reality without providing facts or declaring functional meaning. Essentially an attempt to assert “I’m right, I’m important, grant me sway over the dialog, give me the attention I crave.” Well, I guess that last part worked, at least for this post.

            • AlainCo

              dis you read the papers from the last 20 years… the one that challenge your beliefs?

              time to stop repeating 89 conference, and read the frauds, the Peer review manipulation, the undefendable arguments, the rejected update, the many various experimental setup, the many various teams, the many corps…

              time to learn reading, and stop repeating what you eared.

              you wnat evidence from where ?
              french CEA ? french CNAM working for shell ? Amocco results ? indian BARC ? japanese Toyota, or Mitsubishi , or both ? NASA, or navy NRL, or Navy Spawar ? italian ENEA ? some ex-skeptic like dominguez, celani and duncan, investors, young recent engineers or scientist, or long experimentalists ?

              ask me I have the data…

              after all… find them your self… if you dare. they are on lenr-canr, and some explanation on lenr-forum.

              if you dare to update your data.

      • Gerrit

        what if you had to pick the theory you think describes cold fusion most convincingly, which would you chose?

        • yamal

          there is no theory describing cold fusion in any convincing way. arguably, wlt is the only one at least trying but failing miserably. if cold fusion exists and we can explain it some day, we’ll all be very surprised. there wlll be nobody, least of all w&l, being able to say ‘told you so back in 2013’.

  • Job001

    Mathias Brust indicated “Perhaps I am wrong, or merely ignorant, as you call it.” and further shows admiration for “Martin Fleischmann, given all the great other discoveries he has made” He seems like a nice professor who was promoting science and looking for examples where science didn’t work as well as normal. CF has had many advances, including proofs such as LENRproof.com, and the Toyoto/Mitsubishi transmutation excellent science replication that are catching people by surprise.

  • _Frank_

    I have seen on JONP that the admin has asked Rossi more questions, but Rossi’s answer wasn’t very telling.
    Why not ask Rossi more straight forward questions like: “Who is the organisation/group/person (UL?) in charge to release the e-cat safety certificate”, so that a campaign could get triggered, where all of the customers who have pre-ordered e-cats (according Rossi: half a million, status July 2012) send those certifiers an e-mail, urging them to speed up their work…?

    • Peter Roe

      Because (a) Rossi would already have named the testers if he had any intention of doing so, and (b) because the testers are independent and therefore presumably have no interest in commercial matters. In short, what you suggest is pointless.

      • yamal

        i think frank is referring to certification rather than the 3rd party testing – in which case i don’t understand what a campaign could possibly achieve. sgs certified the old ecat (for safety) with no apparent hassle, so the new ecat should be easy, too. this is primarily a bureaucratic process and its timing depends mostly on how quickly rossi can fill out a form.

        • Peter Roe

          You are right – I should read posts more carefully! Sorry, Frank – please mentally replace ‘testers’ with ‘certifiers’ in my response above.

        • _Frank_

          Well, according to Rossi’s numbers, there are already at least half a million preorders for e-cats, but the delivery can not happen because of not finished safety certification:
          Andrea Rossi
          February 16th, 2013 at 9:03 AM
          Dear Ecat-ering:
          The commercialization of the domestic E-Cat is not yet foreseeable: it depends from the safety certification process.
          Thank you anyway for your so kind attention.
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

          How about mobilizing all those half a million (eagerly waiting) pre-order clients to help bringing LENR to the market by sending an e-mail to the certifiers, asking them to speed up?
          500.000 e-mails might give some additional weight to the significance of that certification getting done in time, shouldn’t it (provided that there is actually a certification work in progress)

          • yamal

            i doubt a certification is in progress and rossi doesn’t really say it is. wasn’t there something like the supposed unwritten yet somehow (at least according to greenwin) indispensable trial period at a location somewhere other than your or my cellar (or any ul or tüv lab, apparently)?

            • _Frank_

              Rossi doesn’t say that domestic e-cat certification is in progress ???
              It was even covered here:
              http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/03/rossi-on-certification-process/

              • yamal

                you’re right. i wasn’t aware he ever actually claimed certification was in progress.
                here’s an idea for all those waiting desperately for their domestic cat. they can pool their money (1,500,000 / 100 = 15,000 per participant) and buy a domestic e-cat which, as we know, is on the market, readily available. they then disassemble it and run the modules in their homes. it can’t be rocket science. just a little plumbing.

  • Sanjeev

    Announcement at DGT’s new site:
    Defkalion Green Technologies is back online.
    We are ready to accept in our laboratory, by 1st March, interested companies requesting to conduct common R&D on applications of our technology.

    • Sanjeev

      I’m having problems posting links. The post disappears as soon as it is posted.

      http://defkalion-energy.com/

    • Daniel Maris

      Pinnochio’s back in town!

  • http://twitter.com/bbck777 Bernie Koppenhofer

    This from Mathias Brust after receiving comments on his article, “This is all very interesting. You will have noticed that I have written that the absence of a working cold fusion reactor over 20 years later suggests flawed data or over interpretation. Perhaps I am wrong, or merely ignorant, as you call it. After all, we do not have hot fusion reactors either.”

    • Neil Taylor

      So both science theories (hot & cold fusion theories) have hit a brick wall. Only Rossie & (maybe Defkalion) both of which are “cold fusion” have said to have broken thru that wall, to a real marketable reactor ready for the world market. True or False?

  • Barry

    It amazes me how so many intelligent people are stuck in the past, namely 1989. If they looked into the evidence of, never mind two or even one decade ago, but of the last year, they would see the amazing progress of Cold Fusion. Mitchell Swartz is getting
    a 4 times greater result than ten years ago. George Miley’s progress with the
    Patterson beads is an amazing story, not to mention SRI, Panetelli, etc.

    Maybe Rossi and Defkalion will delay us all for another year or two or five, but to deny the science or the progress of Cold Fusion is ridiculous. Even if experimenters are working with low temp, there is an unknown nuclear phenomenon going on. Not chemical, nuclear. Forgive me of being a master of the obvious, but WE NEED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE NUCLEAR REACTION THAT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS REVEALING BECAUSE IT MAY LEAD US TO UNLIMITED, CLEAN ENERGY. It’s not like they’re trying to come up with a new piddley type of electric razor. Why are so many blind and will not see.

  • Barry

    It amazes me how so many intelligent people are stuck in the past, namely 1989. If they looked into the evidence of, never mind two or even one decade ago, but of the last year, they would see the amazing progress of Cold Fusion. Mitchell Swartz is getting
    a 4 times greater result than ten years ago. George Miley’s progress with the
    Patterson beads is an amazing story, not to mention SRI, Panetelli, etc.

    Maybe Rossi and Defkalion will delay us all for another year
    or two or five, but to deny the science or the progress of Cold Fusion is ridiculous.
    Even if experimenters are working with low temp, there is an unknown nuclear phenomenon going on. Not chemical, nuclear. Forgive me for being a master of the obvious, but WE NEED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE NUCLEAR REACTION THAT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS REVEALING BECAUSE IT MAY LEAD US TO UNLIMITED, CLEAN ENERGY. It’s not like they’re trying to come up with a new piddley type of electric razor. Why are so many blind and will not see.

  • georgehants

    From New Energy Times
    LENR, Dendrites and Perhaps Dreamliner Battery Fires
    http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/02/12/lenr-dendrites-and-perhaps-dreamliner-battery-fires/

    • http://twitter.com/bbck777 Bernie Koppenhofer

      georgehants, very interesting, thanks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

    Since they have already called it bad science, what is the point of the debate with them. ALL science is and should be open to debate. The only bad science is the science not open to debate.

  • Barry

    It amazes me how so many intelligent people are stuck in thepast, namely 1989. If they looked into the evidence of, never mind two or even one decade ago, but of the last year,
    they would see the amazing progress of Cold Fusion. Mitchell Swartz is getting
    a 4 times greater result than ten years ago. George Miley’s progress with the
    Patterson beads is an amazing story, not to mention SRI, Panetelli, etc.

    Maybe Rossi and Defkalion will delay us all for another year
    or two or five, but to deny the science or the progress of Cold Fusion is ridiculous.
    Even if experimenters are working with low temp, there is an unknown nuclear phenomenon going on. Not chemical, nuclear. Forgive me of being a master of the obvious, but WE NEED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE NUCLEAR REACTION THAT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS REVEALING BECAUSE IT MAY LEAD US TO UNLIMITED, CLEAN ENERGY. It’s not like CF scientist are trying to come up with a piddly new type of electric razor. Why are so many blind and will not see.

  • sergio

    OT: Rossi has been informed that the third party tests will be completed in the third week of March.

    • Neil Taylor

      Yes, I saw that comment on his blog. Now we wait to see when or if it is to be publicly released?

      • sergio

        The trouble is, the TESTS will be completed in third week of March, but the actual reports might take 4 extra weeks…

        • HeS

          @:”take 4 extra weeks”
          or 4 extra months.

          • Ged

            There’s a reason why it takes 5 to 6 years to get a Ph.D. in science… Science is slooooooooow.

          • Daniel Maris

            …or 4 years.

            When all he has to do to restore credibility is give us a webcam link to one of his units generating heat and light 24/7 during this very cold winter.

            What’s the guy playing at?

    • _Frank_

      Remember, only 10 days ago Rossi said…
      Andrea Rossi
      February 5th, 2013 at 3:09 AM
      Dear Michele Dalessandro:
      To make short a long story
      1- indipendent third party tests are in course, the publication will be probably made within February/March, indipendently from the results, on a scientific magazine after peer reviewing

      … and now he announces that only the tests to be finished in March, not to mention when ever a puplication suppose to happen.

      • sergio

        Well, the way I see it, our wait might be very irritating, but why would Rossi care what we know and don’t know? We are of no crucial importance to him. If he has a contract going then his job is as good as done. If he was able to convince the investors that he has the science, then he doesn’t have to do any more publicity stunts. In fact, if Rossi has made any comments since then, and he certainly has been replying to everyone, then it was out of his good will. I would always rather get some comments, than none at all. If things are different now than what he has stated 10 days or 10 months ago, why should that mean that he’s deceiving anyone? With these kinds of things, things change all the time… Besides, I’ve seen enough to keep me interested until the end of this, whatever the case.

        • Peter Roe

          Its a shame this obvious fact needs to be stated – over and over again.

      • HeS

        @Frank:”Remember, only 10 days ago Rossi said”

        I do not see this comment A.Rossi. Could you give the exact link?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-Steward/100000796437067 Daniel Steward

        The people doing the reviews are walking the razors edge here. On the one hand they don’t want to ruin their reputations by giving thumbs up to something that turns out to be a hoax; on the other hand they don’t want to simply blow this off if it turns out to be the real deal. Reputations and livelihoods ruined ether way. So they proceed with caution.

  • SteveW

    Brust states “To date no functional cold nuclear fusion reactor has been built, which suggests that the original report was either flawed, or that the data were over interpreted.”

    Gee, after 60 years of immense research into hot fusion, there are also no functional hot fusion reactors either. By this logic, the theory on hot fusion may be wrong also. Perhaps the reaction taking place in our sun isn’t fusion at all since we haven’t been able to produce a functional hot fusion reactor based on the same theory.

    • Paolo Marcoz

      we have termonuclear fusion bombs….they are pretty functional.

      • Iris_Wildthyme

        As far as I understand it, the reaction is functional enough to use in a bomb, but too unstable for power generation as well as very expensive.

      • SteveW

        Yup, the LENR researchers have been going about this all wrong. What the world really needs is a bomb based on LENR.

  • Paolo Marcoz

    “To date no functional cold nuclear fusion reactor has been built”
    That’s the key. A lot of speech. No facts.

    • Gerrit

      What is a cold fusion reactor to you ?

      If I give you facts would you read them ?

      • Paolo Marcoz

        a device that produce more energy than what it consumes. To a level much greater of measurement errors.

        • Gerrit

          What about a cold fusion reactor that produces measurable transmutations in low temperature environments that should not be able to allow for such transmutations ? Are you interested in that too ?

          • Paolo Marcoz

            if the experiment have been replicated and peer-reviewed….yes, I am.

            • HeS

              Then you probably do not believe that scientists have discovered Higgs bozo. This experiment has not been replicated by an independent team.

              • Paolo Marcoz

                Higgs boson is coerent with the most verified theories, And yet..yes…we wait for a replication

                • Pachu

                  Replication of the higgs find its done in the different experiments inside the LHC (Atlas, Alice, Lhcb, etc.) with 99.99999 statistical confidence that the thing happened over millions of experiment runs, its not a single thing.

                • Gerrit

                  independent replication on a different set of equipment.

                • AlainCo

                  lenr habe been proved ar 50 sigma, not 5sigma…
                  of course in both cas you can call for systematic errors.
                  seems true for higgs since the two bump of the two CERN experiments are nearly incompatible.
                  note that higgs is validated by only one organisation…
                  if you were as paranois as with LENR,

                  1- you will assume it is biased
                  2- the quessed mass is not exactly theory, must be false
                  3- same team so must be fraud

                  LENR is validated at many more than 5 sigma, by really independent teams, by very different experiments, different setups, different effects…

                  higgs is probably true. (in fact 2 higgs is possible, and few other elsewhere)
                  LENr is true without any doubt.

                  only better point for higgs is that there is a positive prejudice for higgs. experimental evidences are greatly inferior for higgs.

                • Pipmonm

                  “we”? Are there two of you?

                • clovis

                  paolo Hi.

                  expert’s, at cern has stated that lenr is real, you sir do not know of what you speak, this site has a group of highly respected indivuals, that has many hours studying this discovery,

                  THIS IS E -CAT WORLD, If you come on here and say everone here is wrong, you better be ready to back up your statments,

                  I personaly think, you have little or no knowlage about this subject, or you been living under a rock, the last few years.

              • londo

                Yes it has. The Higgs boson was seen in both Atlas and CMS experiments with similar signal-to-noise ratios.

            • Gerrit

              1st part

              I recommend you read about the Iwamura experiment at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

              Here is the peer reviewed paper

              http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/41/4642/

            • Gerrit

              2nd part

              here is the report of a 2012 meeting at the ANS (american nuclear society) were claims are made about replications

              http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ANS2012W/2012Iwamura-ANS-LENR-Paper.pdf

            • http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

              “peer-reviewed” is the ball-less wonder of good science. Think for yourself.

          • Master Blaster

            To date, none of the Rossi reactors have produced notable transmutations, and indeed Rossi has backed away from the claim that transmutations power the device. Please provide a link where we can read about the substantial transmutation evidence resulting from exothermic reactions.

      • yamal

        what if you had to single out a paper as the one you think proves cold fusion most convincingly (not the usual ‘yes, there is lots of anecdotal crap in here but they can’t possibly ALL be wrong’ argument), which would you chose?

        • Gerrit

          I know where this is going.

          I will post a peer reviewed paper, you will complain that the paper is not written well, the journal is unknown to you, there is no theory.

          If you are really interested why don’t you start with reading this review paper doi: 10.1007/s00114-010-0711-x

          • yamal

            how arrogant of you to assume that somebody not agreeing with you must be ignorant. i’ve read (and understood) most of what’s been published about cold fusion since ’89. so, assuming you can say the same about yourself, let me ask the question again. which would you chose?

            • Gerrit

              Yamal, forgive me if I have done you wrong. I think I must have been debating too much with truly ignorant people lately.

              For me the most convincing experiment is Iwamura’s.

              http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/41/4642/

              what about you ?

              • yamal

                i would agree if kidwell hadn’t had his famous whim and scanned wipes from iwamura’s lab. what surprised me more than the results was the fact that iwamura didn’t do it himself as part of an ongoing routine, which is pretty inexcusable when running that sort of experiment. still, despite the inherent uncertainties i think transmutation would be a far more solid proof for cold fusion than trying to detect a few milliwatts through mapping questionable temperature measurements against calibrations when the experimenter doesn’t even have a clue about what is supposed to lead to an energy release and what isn’t.

                • Gerrit

                  FUD, Go ahead and believe, together with Kidwell and Shanahan, that the claimed presence of praseodymium on the environmental swipes from the balance can invalidate the experiment. Surely by extension you will not believe any transmutation result from any other lab and you will keep bringing Kidwell’s environmental sweep up as a FUD argument.

                  If the evidence is transmutations, argue with contamination.
                  If the evidence is heat, argue with calorimetry.

                  In your comment above you did exactly that and at the same time stated that all experimenters are incompetent and clueless.

                  I guess in your eyes only Shanahan understands the topic. What is he up to nowadays, still roaming the internet spreading his FUD ?

                • Omega Z

                  Having read about that deal, I have suspicions of Kidwell having ulterior motives As another lab found no contamination. I’ve come to the conclusion that a lot of things are going on in the shadows & Most of it involves the U.S. or at least U.S. entities or organizations. Having followed the E-cat, I have been surprised at how much U.S. Research funding is involved all over the World in whole or at least in part.

                • AlainCo

                  read the explanation about that “magic tweeter” explanation.

                  strange that contamination is so selective…

                  http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35905nrl2009.shtml

                  the full story

                  http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?115-Experiment-Iwamura-Mitsubishi-amp-al-transmutation-experiment

  • Torbjörn

    New Piantelli patent:
    “It is therefore a feature of the present invention to improve the method and
    the generator described in WO2010058288, in order to increase the generation of
    energy until an industrially acceptable level is attained.

    It is another feature of the present invention to improve this method and
    generator, in order to reliably and accurately adjust the power supplied by the
    generator.”

    http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2013008219&recNum=1&maxRec=10&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=Pub+Date+Desc&queryString=IN%3A%28PIANTELLI+Francesco%29+&tab=PCTDescription

    http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/result.jsf

    https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP09806118&lng=en&tab=doclist

  • B

    Thanks.

  • Gerrit

    Thanks Frank for giving your view of Mathias Brust’s intentions.

    For me, the overall story line leaves no doubt that the author uses cold fusion as an example of bad science. He lines Martin Fleischmann up with people who have faked data sets and made false claims. “The list of cases where either bad science or simply fraud has been uncovered and dealt with is long”

    He is obviously ignorant about cold fusion.

    But I also believe that his intentions are good, debate is always better than derision, mockery, dismissal and flat out refusal to listen.

    That is why I suggested that he starts the debate with himself, it might be a very valuable experience for this professor.

    • ecatworld

      Hi Gerrit, I may be giving the benefit of the doubt, but his comments are milder than many I have seen about CF from people in science — and he makes respectful comments about Fleischmann.

      • Gerrit

        Yes, with even more benefit of the doubt, I would consider that he might be pitching for a renewed cold fusion debate. If that is the case, then my response is still fitting, in that it is presenting one side of the debate.

  • Peter Roe

    “which suggests that the original report was either flawed, or that the data were over interpreted.”

    This is academic language for ‘it’s crap – there’s nothing there’ – not ‘let’s look again’. Brust clearly thinks that CF is one of the ‘falshoods’ referred to in his title.