RealClearScience: Cold Fusion Not Real

RealClearScience has a column on their web site that deals with controversial scientific topics which it believes should not be considered controversial, stating that:

Many Americans are being misled on serious scientific issues, and science journalists have to spend an inordinate amount of time debunking myths which seemingly never die.

The article goes on to list 10 topics it considers to be settled science; topics include evolution, global warming, genetically modified foods — and cold fusion.

They make the familiar case that cold fusion cannot happen in a low temperature environment because temperatures like that of the sun are needed for fusion to take place. They then go on to say that Andrea Rossi has claimed to have achieved it with his E-Cat, and therefore should be dismissed — not realizing that Rossi is not claiming that his effect is produced primarily by fusion, and that he has released no theory to explain what is causing the reaction. They state further:

We here at RCS would love nothing more than for Rossi’s E-Cat to work. You can’t dislike the idea of limitless, clean, and affordable energy! But the old maxim still applies: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Far from extraordinary, the evidence has been almost nonexistent.

They don’t mention the Levi-Essen 3rd party E-Cat report, which I find to be very substantial evidence in favor of the reality of the Rossi effect.

In the case of cold fusion / LENR, I would say that science journalists really need to do some more careful research and examinations of the topic before they come to conclusions that mislead the public that there is nothing going on here. If they don’t, it’s going require we bloggers to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to debunk the debunking.

  • ACG

    RealClearScience?
    Very circus sounding. What serious group uses the word real and science in their title.

  • TJK

    Rossi doesn’t have a theory. Putting a theory out doesn’t mean anything to me. What are the experimental results?
    He’s trying to match and discover the conditions that caused Focardi’s high-heat out of control excess heat. I think he has.
    But I don’t think he understands it either.

    • GreenWin

      “Rossi doesn’t have a theory.”

      And you know this how?

  • Chris I

    These folks are scarcely competent and they make the usual lame arguments and not only about Rossi.

    They are foolish about the LHC too, they very hamhandedly quote Don Lincoln of Fermilab from this page, apparently without having read it properly, but in this case at least their contention is not to the contrary.

    They make lame arguments about nuclear power being safe, neglecting as usual the troubles of all the radioactive waste and miss the gap between an airplane accident and the vast effects of a meltdown, aside from talking as if the comparison with pollution from other sources meant it is safe.

    In a few other spots, they are just like the media which they criticize for being showbiz instead of scientific. Even where they are right, they don’t give Real Clear Substantiation. So much for Real Clear Science.

    • Ken

      ^ great post…. couldn’t agree with you more.

  • Matt DeMinico

    Gee big surprise, a “liberal group of progressives that feel that we can just fix everything if we gave them enough power” believes that LENR is fake. And they also believe that macroevolution is established fact, that manmade global warming is real, etc… *sigh*

    Well, since I know macroevolution is not a fact (they’re wrong on that one), and manmade global warming is not a fact (they’re wrong again), then I can be pretty sure they’re wrong on LENR too. After all, stupid is as stupid does.

    • frip

      You make a lot of statements that are outright fallacious or impossible to verify.
      It sounds like sound bytes from the Republican propaganda machine, which is the voice of the elites. Try to clear your mind and question your sources. These sources use many of the same techniques as cult leaders.

      • Matt DeMinico

        Yup… “republican propaganda machine”… I’m too stupid to have analyzed these ideas on my own of course, I must be listening to the “republican propaganda machine”.

        Whatever dude.

        • zvibenyosef

          We don’t think you are stupid, just too lazy to read the article then follow the link to the third party independent test, and read it.

          http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

      • Omega Z

        frip

        I thought he read a different article then I did.

        As to your political twist, These entities are not tied to political parties, but TPTB. Party Politics is in reality DEAD. It’s all for show.

        I Know. Americans vote their candidates. But TPTB determine who rise to positions of power. These (Candidates)- Their is a continuous pool of them, not just 1 or 2, are groomed years in advance. (They Are Recruited.) A few are chosen from this pool to positions of power & control in the parties according to the circumstances of the time and their grooming. Ones Political persuasions are of no concern. They’re all recruited by the same people.

        People look at who contributes to a candidate & say, Ahh, He’s bought & paid for. They would be wrong. He was bought & Paid for long before running for the position. TPTB don’t want No Wild Card. They want to know what control they have before they help you into office.

        Some Evidence for this- Look at what Georges Bushes plan & timeline were for winding down operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. Review what Obama said he would do if Elected President. Nothing in common. 2 totally different Plans.

        Now compare what Obama Actually did to Bushes Original Plan.
        They use the same Exact Script right down to the Dates. Obama is a good soldier. He Follows his marching orders.

        Take a look at the Builderberg Group. It is a who’s who of both Political Parties. Those Evil people of influence the Democrats condemn. Those Evil people of influence the Republicans condemn. There all there. Together.

        NOW, Look a little Closer. WTF- This group includes People from ALL the Countries of Power & Influence. UK, Russia, China, Japan…. TPTB have infiltrated most of the World.

        I Very Recently Read a List of Science Projects underway. Many that we would consider of National Security Concern. To be kept secret from our Foes. Several being done in collusion with Russia & China in Facilities, IN Russia & China. What we see in the MSM is for show. Propaganda. To Continue the Grand Illusion.

        As to the Recruitment I speak of. Most don’t believe.
        Having been approached & the conversations. I only wish I had it on video & placed on U-tube. But that was over 25 years ago.

        Note: I didn’t go to them. They came to me. Tho I already had a negative opinion of Politics at the time, the 1st two meetings were very interesting. The 3rd meeting would leave nearly everyone with Eyes Stretched WIDE.

        I was never interested. They were just very persistent. Political leanings mean nothing to them. They Promise to provide all kinds of Political & Financial Support. It’s a fairly long list. And, They say nothing of repercussions of going against the grain.

        I Brought it up. What If?
        Does the support stop?
        Will I suddenly have skeletons in my closet? Real or Fabricated? Scandal?
        Will My Family be targeted?
        Will my Financial History Change? Disappear or Enhanced to indicate wrong doing?
        Do accidents happen or a would be assassin inadvertently get passed security should one push to far or threaten to go public?

        You know what/how they Said/Responded. Absolutely Nothing.
        It was All in their Expression. Their EYES.

        Whatever is Necessary. What ever they can get away with. What ever it takes. The End justifies the means.

        The fact they recruit 1, 2, 3 decades in advance says their very patient. Very dedicated to shaping the World to their liking. How THEY think things should be. Be-dammed everyone else.

        All this came about because I called out a Candidate who was glad handing people in my favorite coffee/lunch stop. I told him he had no Chance in He11 & then told him what he was doing wrong & why. I’m doing 12-16 hour days & Next thing I know, I’m getting interruptions in my dinner/coffee downtime from the DNC people 100 miles away.

        Never again. I don’t talk to Campaigners ever. Lesson learned. I was Right tho. The Candidate didn’t lose. He got totally trashed by about 80%. Idiots…

    • Chris I

      Yeah, politics. Why don’t you talk about science instead?

      • frip

        Because science is now controlled by the political beast.

  • AlainCo

    Off-topic, toward people here.

    My memory start to be uncertains (contaminated by believers and skeptics unverified claims).
    Can someone tell me if Essen, Levi are really close fiend, are paid, by Rossi…
    it seems that for many skeptics having participated to a test of E-cat and not insulted Ross is enough to claim friendship and being paid by him… anyway maybe there is some part true?

    to frank: could someone make a summary of the previous tests of Rossi, with the participant, their relation with rossi, the result announced by each participant, how the community of hard-skeptics and of reasonable-skeptics reacted…

    The end is coming, and it is time to prepare to write the history , the real one, before the evil academics rewrite it to show how smart and long sighted they are, and how practitioners are incompetent and dishonest.

    • Omega Z

      AlainCo

      To my knowledge following the saga, Prior to the E-cat NO.

      Levi was a Friend or associate of Focardi at Unibo prior to E-cat, but did not know Rossi.

      Levi did several tests of the E-cat before the public demonstrations started at “the request of Focardi” to find alternative reasons for the excess heat.. Basically to debunk their findings. He Couldn’t

      Somewhere- A Video I believe, Levi made some statements about wishing he’d made better documentation of these tests. My impression is he didn’t expect the tests to be positive. Therefore not necessary at the time. That would be hindsight.

      I’ve not seen any indication that Essen new Rossi prior to being invited to 1 of the E-cat Demo’s indicated also on a video (It may have been questions done by Mats Lewan.) available on you-tube.

      Rossi has had multiple involvements with Levi & Essen doing these tests overtime, And being present at Demo’s, So there is likely some friendship between them. I would note that over a dozen people were involved in the 3rd party tests. They could not all be biased.

      Hopefully, Frank and others here at ECW can provide more details. I would also check with (Mats Lewans of NyTeknik or matslew.wordpress.com),
      Daniele Passerini, http://22passi.blogspot.com
      Or Sterling Allan at peswiki.com

      All have met Rossi personally and would probably be a treasure-trove of information.
      All combined, you may be able to piece together who knew who & when.

      Good luck.
      OZ

    • zvibenyosef

      Who Rossi knows is beside the point.

      The Pons and Fleischmann anomalous heat effect has been reproduced thousands of times by scientists around the world. Mike McKubre of SRI international, and Robert Duncan of University of Missouri, are just two of the many scientists who have studied and reproduced this phenomenon. There is ample evidence that this effect is real. It is just a question of how long it will take before somebody can commercialize it.

      • Rockyspoon

        Besides, the tests performed back in ’89 to debunk P & F were so poorly executed, only a cult scientist would believe them (or one paid under the table to guarantee government funding of more exotic energy forays).

        The most laughable point was that these so-called “experts” made negative pronouncements in 2 weeks, whereas P & F told everybody it took them at least 4 weeks to load the cathode with heavy water before ANY reaction would start.

        And nobody even bothered to contact P & F and ask them how they did it–just like so many ego-busting scientists nowadays, they figured they knew everything about it even though they’d never done it before.

        P & F had invested $90,000 of their own money and 5 years to get results–obviously it wasn’t something you could master in two weeks like all those other “scientists” believed.

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    August 28th, 2013 at 8:36 PM
    Remi Andre’:
    I answered many times to this issue. To give away the IP will kill all the serious investments, for obvious reasons. We are making a rigorous work of test and validation and when it will have been finished our technology will reach a wide diffusion made by the concerns that now are investing because they have an IP.
    My responsibility is to make this technology have the strongest possible backing to be really useful, not to go to the Nirvana. Honestly, I think we have to serve God not to go to the Nirvana, but to merit the life and give a sense to it. If you want to really diffuse a technology you need real backing, and no backing has ever been given to open source stuff. You have a paradigmatic example if you make a comparative analisys between Linus and Microsoft. Should we give away the IP we would lose all the serious backers and should have a Brancaleon’s Armada of clowns playing with it.
    About the situation in Siria, I do not agree with you. The situation in Siria is enormously more complex than you say, even if today they always say that whatever happens of bad is born by the bad guys dealing with energy. As a matter of fact the sociological evolution ( revolution?) in Africa and Middle East has much more complex origins: it is the difficult awakening of a people that disrupts equilibria made by leadind classes that have not understood the line of evolution of History. Energy plays a marginal role in this situation.
    Thank you for your kind and persistent attention, for which I conserve gratitude.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • georgehants

    Good page of views, the one thing that seems to be clearly missing is ——
    It is 24 years since P&F, two qualified scientists gave a report of an anomaly that they had observed.
    Science immediately debunked and destroyed them and their Evidence.
    Today main-line science as shown by the above report and the lack of honest reporting elsewhere in the scientific comics is in exactly the same incompetent, corrupt position.
    Trying to find myriad excuses to cover up the failings of science in this and many other areas will just muddy the waters and not lead to the correcting of the failings outlined above.
    If Science cannot be relied on for the Truth then what hope for the World where Truth is a commodity rarer than the Unicorn.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    To me this shows what a pitched-battle mud pit the world of science is.

    The claim of “Settled Science” is a rhetorical device to hedge ones position. “We all know…” is used to dismiss out of hand your intellectual opponent.

    But to me, that doesn’t means it’s bad or wrong to stake that territory. At some point science impacts the body politic, and the consequences of a particular scientific claim is political, or I think the correct term might be “pitched-battle mud pit”.

    Debaters always try to argue that their models are unassailable.

    But to say that “Science is the business of assailing models” doesn’t change the fact that, at length, something might be true, and something else might be false.

    We are generally at this website because we have been piqued by the developments in Cold Fusion (LENR, et al). I personally think that “something of importance” is happening, but do I know what it is? Nope.

    Heck, I can’t tell you what gravity is. At all.

    So I’m cool with realclearscience.com staking their territory. They might end up being right. But we also know that – up until the Wright Brothers – powered flight is impossible.

    Here are some fun examples of other just wrong declarations:

    http://www.wattpad.com/26359-some-funny-and-totally-wrong-predictions-of-the#.Uh7Wu7yE41E

    http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/neverwrk.htm

    http://www.thefastlaneforum.com/current-events-sports-off-topic/4750-30-quotes-all-proven-wrong.html

    To quote Agent Kay, (Men In Black, 1997) “Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”

  • Sophareth Camsonne

    This jounalist is not serious. He deserve to be out
    of the door.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The poles of mars expand and contract when earth’s poles do. Could it have something to do with that big yellow thing in the sky?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

    • fortyniner

      There is increasing evidence that the shiny yellow thing may be connected with all sorts of cyclic phenomena on several planets. It is even possible that the antics of the monkeys on planet #3 are less important than some of them seem to think.

      • georgehants

        Careful Peter in many areas the “monkeys” with their conscious and moral minds and intuitions and without the out of control ego’s of human’s, are clearly much more capable than us, if only they where left alone in their enviroment, to live fair lives and protect their habitats.

        • zvibenyosef

          I think he was talking about us.

        • Rockyspoon

          As a former mining engineer, you’d be shocked at how most messed-up earth scars are now indiscernible from all the rest of God’s beautiful Earth.

          Of course, that wasn’t always the case, but in this part of the world, you don’t get away with messing things up anymore. And that’s a good thing–we need an approach that supports multiple use, if only for a short season and a compelling reason.

      • Omega Z

        Peter

        That Shiny Yellow thing is Evil. 🙁

        The MSM tells us all the time to take evasive measures. Cover ourselves in thick slathers of lotions & never venture out for more then a few minutes at any given time.

        They have convinced Me. We should harness all the power of the E-cats as soon as possible & Blast that Evil Disk from the Sky at the 1st opportunity. 🙂

        • Rockyspoon

          Or better yet–if Old Sol is so powerful, why doesn’t it basically control the climate?

          Remember, these “climate scientists” get their funding from interests that want to control carbon by blaming CO2, even though Earths average temps haven’t seen any statistically-significant increase in over 200 months yet the increase in CO2 is the largest in recorded history.

          The travesty is that a big portion of the earth’s population believe them. But now, being a “scientist” isn’t as prestigious as it used to be, and for good reason–if “climate scientists” would rather work for the devil than be honest, it unfortunately tarnishes the reputation of all scientists.

          Note: I believe “RealClearScience” is as wrong about “Global Warming” as they are about LENR–and for the same deceptive reason.

  • theBuckWheat

    Evolution is not “settled” even if you dismiss the spontaneous appearance of life upon which evolution is built. (Unless you believe in aliens as
    Richard Dawkins does, which puts a whole new spin on “settled”.)

    • Andrew Macleod

      I believe life grabs hold where ever it can in the universe. Life is probably quite common.

      • Matt DeMinico

        Hehe… ok. you sound like the antagonists in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. The people who say something must be true because they believe it. They “wish it true”.

        How big a number is 10^40,000? Because that is the total # of possibile combinations you could have in order to create the enzymes in ONE living organism.

        Surely more than one combination out of that 10^40,000 would yield some form of life, I’ll give you that. So, let’s say 50% of the combinations would yield life. That leaves you with only 5 x 10^39,999 combinations to try. 🙂

        So, if all the atoms in the universe were amino acids, and they each tried 100 billion combinations per second for your supposed age of the universe (heck, I’ll even be generous to you here, I’ll give you 100 trillion years), AND none of them repeated another’s work, then by today, you would have tried 10^105 possible combinations.

        You’re now left with 5 x 10^39894 possible combinations remaining to form one single life form.

        Good luck.

        • Ted-X

          In chemistry some compounds tend to self organize, e.g. crystallization, self-polymerization of amino-acids under specific conditions; particularly thin-layer phenomena demonstrate a lot of self organization (lipids and functional lipids). Simple proteins (prions) can even reproduce without the DNA.

        • BroKeeper

          This is not including the infinite odds against YOU having self-conscience will from nothingness and to able to comprehend this statement:

          We in the flesh now have a: “spirit that will return to God who gave it” (Google it). Spirit is not physical and comes from eternity.

          Who can say or prove one way or other the evolution process ending with humans is not a tool directed by a Higher Power (allegedly by many). A ‘second bible’ the “fossil records” indicates such.

          There is a master plan in which “God forms the spirit of man within him”.

          This may be OT but must be considered.

          • Matt DeMinico

            There is ample evidence against evolution and an “old” earth (not that 6-10k years is young). Don’t buy into the crap people tell you that evolution may have been “guided by God”. That’s absurd.

            • BroKeeper

              Mat,

              You may or may not be interested in Daniel Samson’s “God and Evolution?”, written by a friend and pastor rethinking his position on evolution as it relates to biblical verses and scientific disciplines. If not I understand. I once believed as you do. It’s not the core of one’s faith. Thanks.

              • Matt DeMinico

                Whether Jesus Christ himself ever said the world was made in 7 days or not (he did say that by the way, and last I checked, he doesn’t lie), I would still believe evolution and an old earth is a load of crap.

                There is a TON of evidence out there supporting the exact historical facts detailed in the Bible. Read Dr. Walt Brown’s book, “In the Beginning” sometime, the 8th edition is free online at http://www.creationscience.com

                • BroKeeper

                  The original Greek word for “day” is “aion” which means “age (dispensation, or indefinite time), era, or a period of time.”

                  The King James translators were personally attached to the evolution developed tool that gave them their ability to serve their strict paradigm thinking king – believing a day was a single day, otherwise ….. 🙂

                  For those who study God’s word must be diligent in proper exegesis in the full extent. I am continually “unlearning” the popular belief systems of “Christianity” and realized I have been a pawn in the incorrect use of God’s word by religious PTB, thus I am not qualified to teach all truth (Jesus Christ).

                  Remember there are 7 Billion belief systems.

                  This said, this is not the forum to continue religious discussion in risk of turning off other valued readers. Thanks, Frank for your patience.

                • Matt DeMinico

                  Yeah “BroKeeper”, convenient you try to throw the last word into this discussion and then say “let’s stop talking about this” as if your points were correct.

                  *sigh*

                  Regardless:
                  – The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek.
                  – The presence of so many belief systems doesn’t invalidate the Truth. If 2 billion Chinese and Indians believed that 2+2=7 doesn’t make it true.
                  – Your “day means a millenium” argument doesn’t hold any water whatsoever
                  – As I have stated before, there is beyond ample evidence (and more coming out every day) to support the historicity of the Bible in every aspect, especially as it relates to creation.
                  – Did you even READ the link I gave, or just spout off more of your “I am more enlightened than thou because I have an ‘open mind'”? After all, we know what an “open mind” is…

            • Rockyspoon

              Then you have far more “faith” than I have–in chaos or mystery or whatever you want to call it.

              As a systems engineer, I find it absurd that you’d believe all this organization didn’t come from somebody expert in organization.

              To believe otherwise is not only absurd, it’s completely out of the question.

              (I’ve never had an Internet System automatically code or program itself and don’t ever expect it to happen–or do you have a secret way of doing that?)

              • Matt DeMinico

                I’m saying it was designed and not evolved.

  • HHiram

    I’m a scientist, and I’m not a fan of RealClearScience. They make hyperbolic claims and wave opinions around as if they are facts. It’s not science at all; it’s just science journalism. No real scientist who strictly adheres to the scientific method would dismiss LENR as “impossible” out of hand. The gaps and imperfection in our knowledge of physics and chemistry are enormous, and so the only reasonable course is to admit the possibility of extraordinary phenomena. This is not to say science *believes* one way or the other; it just means it is clearly unscientific to dismiss the possibility of LENR phenomena out of hand.

    As a scientist, LENR appears to be supported by some interesting evidence. A number of teams have produced over-unity results, and they appear to be replicable. Unfortunately, these results have not been widely published in peer-reviewed journals. That is partly the fault of the experimenters, and partly the fault of journals not being willing to publish cold fusion findings. Replication is the gold standard in experimental science, so achieving an easily replicable experimental design should be the primary goal if LENR developers want to convince scientists that the phenomenon is real. (This, of course, is exactly what the memorial project is all about).

    As a scientist, the only reasonable position is optimistic skepticism: LENR looks like it *might* be real, but the evidence so far is *not* compelling. I remain hopeful that more convincing evidence will emerge, preferably sooner rather than later.

    • zvibenyosef

      I could not agree more. There is a staggering level of arrogance amongst many scientists who wrongly believe that they have the answers to everything. The history of LENR is a testament to this sad state of affairs. It is interesting to note that the very greatest scientists like Albert Einstein and Robert Feynman were quite modest, and self effacing. We cannot begin to learn, until we accept that we don’t yet know everything.

      • fortyniner

        Don’t forget the incident when Feynman interfered disastrously with a demo of the Papp engine – not because of any evidence of malfeasance, but simply because he could not accept even the possibility of new science.

        http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/comments/papparticle2.html (para 3)

        I have no particular opinion either way on ‘plasma transition’ motors, but this incident does seem to indicate anything but a modest and self effacing attitude on Feynman’s part.

  • simon

    I’ve never liked “that old maxim”(whence?) about extra-ordinary evidence. What the hell is extra-ordinary evidence? Evidence is evidence, or it is not.

    • hempenearth

      From a Brian Josephson presentation:
      “Marcello Truzzi asserted at one time that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’, but later decided the concept was incoherent. In fact, the evidence that changes minds is often quite
      ordinary: what is of relevance is the psychological factors
      that may inhibit acceptance of the evidence.”

      • BroKeeper

        Extra-ordinary evidence is evidence that is ordinarily extra to the evidence ordinarily not extra. This leaves unordinary evidence to the degree from extra-ordinary evidence that is to evidence ordinarily not extra plus evidence ordinarily not extra is to the unordinary evidence.

        • Eyedoc

          Yep

          • Rockyspoon

            I always figured what might be extraordinary to one might simply be ordinary to another.

            Who’s to decide which?

            That’s the crux of the problem.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah, parroting clichés is what passes for scientific journalism these days.

    • Mannstein

      I think that remarkable nonsense statement originated from Carl Sagan.

    • zvibenyosef

      You are quite right. I have read that phrase so many times, but I never analyzed it in that way. It is like many of the stupid sayings that become “common knowledge” by constant repetition, like Benjamin Franklins famous quote “There are only two things certain in life Death and Taxes” Many people do not pay taxes.

  • Bruce Fast

    I am so glad that these guys straightened me out on LENR. Now I can relax and invest in oil.

    I’m glad that they straightened me out on chiropractic too. My chiropractor straightened my back out, and reduced my constant pain dramatically. However, with realclearscience’s opinion behind me I bet I can sue my chiropractor and get all of my money back.

    • psi

      No one who has had serious back trouble and experienced the benefits that chiropractic medicine can confer can seriously entertain the notion that it is not a legitimate healing modality. The problem, of course, lies in the psychological conditioning of medical schools, which train allopaths to be intolerant of healing methods in which they have not been trained.

  • Barry

    They should call it “Real Clear Opinion Science.”

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “Rossi has not provided any information as to how his device works. Nor has he published any of his results in peer-reviewed scientific journals.”
    Yes, he’s a brilliant strategist.

    • Sturmvogel

      UFOs are around the world, since very long. They use a technology and energy source that we don´t know, we can see them sometimes,and nobody has doubt that they exist, so seems LERN effect and the ones that work on it. Everybody must be prepared to the possibility that we may never know the truth, like the UFOs one.

      • Dickyaesta

        @Sturmvogel
        We are living in an age where we don’t have to wait anymore for ‘our’ politicians and/or people in the know, to reveal us the truth.

        We can now outsource science itself to investigate the UFO phenomena by reverse engineering or LENR thanks to Celani and MFMP etc.. If that scares politicians so be it, they are relics in an age of fast moving information and a move away from consulting people in the know, self appointed most of the time. Now we can google almost any subject and form our own opinion. And that goes for UFO`s, psycologic concepts, like placebo and levitating, to our favorite subject LENR & Rossi.

        Nothing is more extreme in our world than stagnation itself, even in science!

  • Mason

    I emailed the following today to the editors of RealClearScience. Their response is below. I thought it very interesting that they actions showed that they thought Ethan Siegel held more weight than Brian Josephson or Julian Schwinger, or the cited governmental agencies, or any other evidence cited in LENRPRoof.com. A real lesson in journalism.

    If his response to my follow up email merits sharing, I will do so.

    ++++++++++++++
    Gentlemen:

    this is in response to your piece about settled science.

    I believe your (Cold Fusion) article on RealClearScience is categorically incorrect.

    I think that if you or one of your reporters evaluates the details of the information on LENRProof.com, you will be persuaded. The LENR phenomena is real and the DIA, DOD, US Navy, Darpa, Nasa, and the EU have actively come down on the side of the phenomena being real.

    Now, I ask the following favor of you: ask of yourselves the following two questions. If LENR is real and the impact on the fossil fuel industry is as extreme as is suggested, then what would your analysis conclude about the nature of the industry’s response to LENR? If LENR is real, then what other vested interests would be negatively financially impacted by LENR acceptance and what would their likely response be to the LENR phenomena?

    Cordially,

    Mason

    +++++++++++++++++++
    Hi Mason,

    Our favorite astrophysicist, Ethan Siegel, explains why cold fusion may be theoretically possible, but it has not yet been proven.
    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/25/cold-fusion-is-it-possible-is/

    Best,

    Alex B. Berezow, Ph.D.

    ++++++++++++++++++++
    Hello Alex,

    thank you for your response and for the November 2011 blog posting of Mr. Siegel.

    You are all busy. I’ll just leave the topic with the point that, as with everything, knowledge and experimental evidence grows. You might appreciate a May 2013 posting from Forbes regarding 3rd party testing of a LENR device. I include a link to the original paper now available through Cornell’s posting service.
    LINK >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/
    LINK>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

    Thank you for the opportunity of seeing you balancing Mr. Siegel against those I originally suggested.

    It has been a lesson.

    Cheers,

    Mason

    • georgehants

      well done 🙂

    • zvibenyosef

      We should treat their original article with the same lack of respect they obviously have for their readers, and not dignify it with any more attention.

  • Omega Z

    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    NOT- “Ordinary proof is More then Sufficient.”

    Extraordinary claims May require extraordinary examination of the Facts. Merrily claiming it to be Junk Science, Etc, Is by Far, Not Extraordinary Examination of the Facts.

    If a product works when Theory says otherwise, It Is the Theory that needs reworked. Not the Product.

    Theory,is nothing but a preconceived Opinion, View, Idea. Something to be tested. And tested Again, & Again, Etc.
    It is sad in this world where Theory has taken precedence over fact. A Proven Fact reigns. If it works, it works. There is nothing to dispute except the Theory. Theory should be put back in it’s place. It neither proves nor disproves anything in itself. It’s just a tool. Something to be used for better understanding. It is not infallible.

    Settled Science. My Definition of “We have reached our limits of understanding.” Something to be revisited from time to time as we obtain more knowledge. It’s Theoretically Impossible. Reread this paragraph.

    • daniel maris

      Quite. Einstein’s theories were considered outlandish when they first appeared. But the proof that generally was some fairly modest observations of an eclipse. That had the effect of letting everything fall into place. We really to need to jettison this absurd claim about extraordinary proof being required.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      +1

    • Mannstein

      True science thrives on revisionism as does the subject of history. Embrace it and it will lead you to truth. Shun it and you’ll end up in the dark ages.

  • Boris Ivanoff

    Well, the article provides an interesting link and that link is from January 2011 and quotes Rossi as saying, ““We have passed already the phase to convince somebody,” Rossi wrote in his forum. “We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market.”

    http://phys.org/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html#jCp

  • Petrol

    While I dislike skeptics who from a position of safety shoot down ideas based on sloppy reasoning and lack of attention to detail I think extraordinary claims is a fair point. How many more years do we give Rossi to produce something or evidence of something that can’t be ignored? Supposedly he has been working on e-cats for home use and selling big blue boxes to secret military customers…yet despite all of this it is still impossible to independently verify any of his activities or claims.

    “3rd party” papers by friends of Rossi unfortunatly is not acceptable to me.

    • AlainCo

      what is your definition of a friend of rossi ?
      someone who simply have admitted after testing himself that it worked ?

      Essen is not a friend… and the 6 other physicist are nobody for him.

      anyway what rossi propose is not extraordinary, because LENR is real, and getting more efficient is not extraordinary for a technology…

      the first nuclear effect were not more powerful than F&P experiments.
      the rest is engineering

    • Zedshort

      The saw: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” needs to be put out of its misery and buried. Any claim of any sort requires only that the laws of physics as we know them should be shown to not be violated by the system under scrutiny. There are only so many laws of physics that can be applied and you need not search about for new laws of physics to put to use. A proper application of an energy balance and a mass balance on any of these E-cat system will determine if they are operating as claimed. Some people might like to see the test repeated by other researchers, I suppose as a means of removing the operator bias that might exist on the part of those who might have a vested interest. But the expression truly is hogwash.

      • fortyniner

        +1

  • sven

    Well, for the statement that fusion can only take place at extreme heat, that has simply been proven wrong. Muon-catalyzed_fusion is a room temperature cold fusion, taking place according to all conventional laws of physic, was predicted in 1954 and proven with a measure in 1956. There is therefore no debate regarding that fusion between two Hydrogen atoms can indeed take place at room temperature and no skilled scientist will claim otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

    The only problem with Muon catalyzed fusion for practical applications is that we know of no practical way of creating muons.

    With the fact in mind that fusion can indeed take place at room temperatures, the task changes into, how can we practically create those particles needed or otherwise manipulate the conditions of the nucleus involved to create the conditions for fusion?

    That is the big question but some of the recent evidence seem to suggest that Bose-Einstein-Condensate (BEC) might be a handy tool. The BEC is again a part of the currently approved physics, and under BEC condition the very structure of the nucleus is affected. Normally BEC requires extremely low temperature to form but some scientists are exploring the possibility that BEC can form under the right temperatures, within micro-cracks of the correct size in crystallized structured materials such as Nickel, possible also requiring their para-magnetic characteristics. During BEC conditions of material there is increased likelihood of electron capture or fusion taking place so this is certainly interesting phenomena for cold fusion researchers.

    BEC is therefore another well approved particle physic phenomenon that is a candidate for involvement in low temperature cold fusion.

    So stating that fusion can’t take place at room temperatures according to the current laws of physics has simply been proven wrong 50 years ago and particle and quantum physics seem to provide us with a number of tools that could help us making use of fusion, if we only knew how to use them.

    • Dave Lawton

      Sven you are spot on,the journo`s of some of these science mags like Realclear science are quite clueless I find and seem to have no experience at the coalface of particle physics otherwise they would not make such sweeping statements about fusion. Charles Frank was the head of our Lab after C F Powell when I worked there in the 1960`s.There were some pretty smart cookies at Bristol.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      +1

      • Barry

        +1

    • Eyedoc

      Very nicely stated

  • kasom

    I don’t care about those media, they don’t count for me, BUT:

    If Rossis boss is really a big “carrier” WTH prevents him from give a public announcement these days about LENR devices available within x months or even x years?

    It would initiate a new thinking about oil and the importance of the arabs. It could make a huge majority stand up and possibliy avoid a syrian war, saving numerous lifes for the weeks coming…

    I don’t care about the primitive islamists imans and acitivists but about all the majority of thumb but brave people that are dominated by them.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      “WTH prevents him from give a public announcement these days about LENR devices available within x months or..”. Basically, AR has said that it will happen at some point (from the “carrier” PR dept), so I guess nothing prevents them, just that they haven’t yet gotten quite there yet.

      In the past, a couple of times Rossi has eventually done what reasonable sceptics asked for. People criticised steam, and later tests didn’t use it. People asked about licensees, and after half a year there were two public licensee meetings. People asked why no 3rd party test, and after a reasonable delay they made it. Maybe it’s a pattern of some sort. A lot is explained simply by the fact that any work, be it simple or difficult, takes time.

      • kasom

        I still believe in the e-cat, otherwise I would not post here.

        The questions that thrills me is: If “the partner” is of similar humanistic opinions as A.R. often has said, a premature coming out is well worth the possible change in public opinion.

        Obama turns with the wind.

        • zvibenyosef

          The Obama administration allow anyone to create a petition on http://www.whitehouse.org. If it receives more than 25000 supporters, the administration will consider the proposal. There have been two petitions so far asking the administration to devote research money to LENR, they both died for lack of interest. LENR desperately needs an influx of research money to translate from an interesting phenomena to a practical source of energy.

  • Igor

    Why would anyone care about opinion of some website like realclearscience.com?
    What makes them qualified to discuss such complex topics as LENR?
    As far as I can tell, it’s just a news aggregator (and very
    opinionated one at that).

  • frip

    This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with money and power.
    Articles like this are written only one purpose. Either written by the elite or their automatons, it is created to discredit anything that will take away from the bottom line.

    • AstralProjectee

      I’m betting Occam’s razor applies here. And the most likely scenario is that this lady is trying to do her best to say what most mainstream scientists have to say on these issues. Unfortunately she does not seem like a good independent thinker, by researching these things herself in depth, and he’s just going by the mainstream scientific status qua as to the validity of these topics.

  • Mark

    The problem is partly due to what demarcates science from non-science. The people that specialize in this are philosophers of science and as I understand it there is no good general criteria.

  • Yury Kissin

    People who deny the reality of cold fusion usually put forward the crucial argument: the known examples of nuclear fusion all require very high temperatures (to overcome Coulomb repulsion) and they all produce abundant short-way radiation (x-rays).
    To overcome this kind of criticism, let us downgrade the tenor of the discussion. Tell the critics to address a simple situation: there stands on a lab bench a medium-dimension metal box containing a primitive electric heater and a stainless-steel cylinder. The cylinder has inside it powder of nickel and hydrogen under a low pressure. If the cylinder is heated to ~300-400oC, it starts emitting energy (in a form of excess heat) in an amount 4 to 6 times higher that the input energy spent of the cylinder heating.
    If this sounds impossible, the critics should look at the recording of the experiments.
    Than they should make only one of the two possible conclusions (and loudly say so):
    1. The people who performed the experiments (in total, at least a dozen, most well known and well respected scientists with excellent reputation) are all crooks and what they show us is elaborate con jobs.
    2. These are valid experiments but nobody has a good explanation (theory) for them yet.
    A clear agreement with one of these two statements neatly separates the critics into two camps. The future will show who is correct. The future will also give proper names to the people belonging to the two camps (willful obstructionists of science and gullible people).

    • AlainCo

      I will repeat it for people who don’t already knwo it…
      It is stupid to deny facts because of a theory…ok.

      But nothing forbid LENR inside a lattice…
      Any expert in semiconductors, superconductors, nanotech, material science… would know it (if free to speak).

      It is absolutely crazy that all physicists, like me (and my MSc in electronics/IT) and Yeong Kim (physicist) did not quickly think that applying free-space physics to nucleus inside a complex lattice, was STUPID.

      there is nothing else to say…. like using aerodynamic inside earth for rabbits.

      the fact that those BS arguments were accepted, can be understood for uneducated people, but for experts it shows how far they can submit to the consensus of terror, without even noticing it.

      It remind me something similar…

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I guess the conventional thinking goes that inside the nuclear force range distance from a nucleus, the integrated electron probability density is small, hence one can ignore electrons, hence vacuum physics should apply even in solid matter. However, what if protons or other nuclei become delocalised; what then. I don’t recall seeing a first-principles calculation of such situation.

        A somewhat (but weakly) analogous situation was in the 1950’s when the first ionospheric incoherent scatter radars were built. They expected that the radar Doppler spectrum would have equalled the plasma electron distribution. But it wasn’t, it instead equalled the ion distribution. The radio waves scatter from electrons, but they still show the ion spectrum, although the plasma is ionised. A theory was found later. The situation is simpler because it’s classical physics, quantum effects can be safely ignored in such low density plasma.

        • Ted-X

          Actually, in hybridized orbitals the electron density in the nucleus is quite large, as the nodes of the orbitals are located in the nucleus itself (that means high probability of electron passing through the nucleus !). We have discussed this before. The hybridized orbitals are usually not taken into consideration, but they might be the clue to electron capture.

  • GreenWin

    “We have a frustration all conservatives have… the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives.” Tom Bevan, RealClearScience founder

    RealClearPolitics/Science is majority owned by Steve Forbes, publisher of Forbes Magazine, multiple Forbes online brands and former home to columnist Mark Gibbs (fired immediately after his post on Defkalion/LENR.)

    “Founded in 2000 by John McIntyre and Tom Bevan, Chicago-based RealClearPolitics covers all aspects of the U.S. political process including policy, elections and government.” smartchristian [dot]com/references/politics

    The RealClear brand also covers liberal points of view, e.g. former Weather Underground terrorist, William Ayers appeared on RCP Morning Commute with Tom Bevan and Charlie Stone, exclaiming:

    “Every president in this century should be put on trial. Every one of them, for war crimes.”

    Suffice it to say, RealClear comprehension of science is muddy at best.

    • Babble

      This explains a lot. They probably argue against evolution too.

      • Zaxxon

        Macro Evolution (evolution of one species from another, or of bacteria from an organic soup) is a religion, not science. It can’t be observed in a repeatable experiment, and it’s not falsifiable, because any evidence against evolution, such as the fossil record itself(*), is just spun into evidence for it.

        (*) We don’t see gradual change in the fossil record, just long periods of stasis, but instead of evolutionists accepting that as evidence against the theory, they came up with “punctuated equilibrum” – basically, the “scientific” equivalent of “the dog ate my homework”. Most vertebrate species in existence now came into being in close to their present form in the Cambrian Explosion in the space of a mere 10 million years, too fast (mathematically) for evolution to do the required work.

        Evidence of similar DNA, structures, etc. between different species is no more evidence of evolution than evidence of similar assembly code between versions of Windows. Windows code was engineered, with significant reuse of old code so each version contains bits similar to the previous one – the same would well be true of DNA engineered by some entity.

        Another fallacy – conflating denial of macro evolution with belief in (a specific) religion. You don’t even have to believe in God to poke a hole in macro evolution; you simply have to believe it’s not valid science. It’s perfectly possible that life may have evolved on another planet, giving rise to aliens, who in turned, intelligently designed life on Earth. (Rock strata on that planet should have slowly changing forms.)

        As far as anthropogenic “Global Warming” it’s a load of bunk. There’s no evidence Man’s activity has any impact on global CO2 levels. The earth has warmed and cooled for eons before humans were here and will continue to do so after we’re gone. (It’s not even clear whether CO2 is the result or cause of temperature change.) The “Global Warming” crisis is a pure power grab by politicians – in a crisis, many people will surrender their freedom and money to the government in the hope of a “solution”.

        • GreenWin

          Zaxxon, thank you for a clear view of two favorite “RealScience” theories. Evolution, like Newtonian physics is a golden chalice for conservatives. Interesting that any non-Darwin theory is accused of religious fanaticism ID. Yet external design appears more probable than the stunning lack of evidence in the fossil record.

          Likewise fear of CO2 levels today are dwarfed by Devonian (1200ppm) and Cambrian when flora and fauna excelled. Manufactured crisis followed by shaming is a powerful potion with which to mollify humans.

          • zvibenyosef

            External design may possibly be responsible for the inception of life on Earth. Then the question becomes what is the nature of the external designer?
            The Earth has undergone many changes since the Devonian age, in particular, the continents have drifted apart into different configurations, and we now have polar ice caps and glaciers locking up much of the water. Most life back then was aquatic, so they did not mind this one bit. If we were to achieve those levels again, much of the land which is now inhabited by people would be under water.

            • GreenWin

              No. Most paleogeologists theorize the expansion of Devonian flora dramatically reduced atmospheric CO2 via carbon fixation triggering global cooling and eventually glaciation. Nearly 70% of all marine invertebrate species vanished while terrestrial species survived.

            • Rockyspoon

              The earth is trending colder and colder. And we’re not that far away from another 100,000-year Ice Age (there’s been at least 30 of them in the past 5 million years).

              External design is a complicated subject and I believe it’s more along the line of Divine Intervention–and each of us has a role to play.

              That could either make many of us satisfied or highly uncomfortable, depending on what your goals are.

    • hempenearth

      Great work GW!

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Thanks GreenWin….that first quote tells it all

    • Jim

      Very helpful, answered the question I started posing to myself as I read down the page.

    • J

      “…fired immediately after his post on Defkalion/LENR”

      That’s a bit disingenuous considering he wrote 4 or 5 articles for Forbes over the course of over a year.

  • Preston

    They also think Nuclear power is safe, but there has been a major disaster every 20 years or so. If we built enough fission plants to replace coal, we would need 20 times as many reactors or more. If we did that, we should expect a Fukushima type disaster every year. And Fukushima is still leaking, no telling how much it will release over the next 20 years or longer.

    There is a “fix”, which uses LENR, This is the same group of scientists that got a US Navy Patent. http://www.globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx

    They use cold fusion as the trigger to burn Uranium, it allows them to burn uranium that has not been enriched, or even old spent fuel. And unlike conventional Nuclear plants, they can turn off the reaction when needed, so meltdowns are not possible.

    Patent
    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/8419919

    • fortyniner

      The device creates a dense flux of slow neutrons, necessary to trigger fission in ‘low grade’ fuels without the need for criticality (chain reaction). Apparently the GeNiE core consists of palladium in deuterium subjected to microwave stimulation.

    • GreenWin

      The issue here is the apparent assignment (exclusive license?) of this Navy/JWK cold fusion patent to NSTech LLC. This corporation is a partnership of connected private contractors – some with a history of federal crimes and negligence at vulnerable national security installations under the control of DOE.

      Please read my comments re NSTech LLC at http://coldfusionnow.org/pulse-magazine-debuts-with-first-issue-as-premium/

      Comments: GreenWin August 10, 2013 at 5:02 PM
      responding to Greg Goble’s request for a closer look at the key players involved in the GEC GeNiE reactor. It is a rather sordid tale, which IMO can only be resolved by a Congressional Inquiry into NSTech LLC, and cancellation of the DOE contract under which NSTech LLC has appropriated the patent.

      • GreenWin

        Clarification, Congress should order DOE to cancel the portion of their contract with NSTech that assigns the Navy/JWK patent or license thereto. NSTech’s partners all make billions (total hundreds of billions) off of DOE contracts. They are ALL heavily invested in fission, fossil and hydro energy.

        NO private consortium should control this patent or any portion thereof without discreet, specific approval by the Congress on behalf of the American people.

        • fortyniner

          GreenWin, thanks for the diligent background research you’ve posted on coldfusionnow.com. The cynical manoeverings you reveal would seem to indicate that at least in the US, the depth of government/corporate corruption means that cold fusion will not be permitted to emerge in any form, and instead will inevitably drift into the control of the existing energy cartel, with active government complicity.

          This will also hold true where US influence is at its highest, i.e., in countries such as the UK and France. Sweden and (eventually) Germany may offer a better chance of open adoption of CF, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on them, or on any other European state, including Russia (geographically European). This is all beginning to pan out in a rather predictable fashion.

          • AlainCo

            To compare, It is long since serious people know that Russia/Gazprom try to block shale gas in EU, with some success, thanks to the environmentalist…

            this lead strangely to a buzz, from Communist supporter that Gazprom is funding Greenpeace

            http://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Flepcf.fr%2FY-a-t-il-collusion-entre

            it is not a surprise, since many oil company are funding environmentalist, allowing the top 3 to own a total budget above a billion…
            it you know they they have free access to many media, unpaid supporters, and that their sole purpose is communication, you can compare their communication budget to a Corporation of 200 billion$ cash flow.

            Unlike that article I don’t think that this payment is under condition. Probaly, like did USSR during cold war, they pay (through intermediates) Greenpeace to play their own game, and support Russian gas, and gas turbines… to fight against coal, nuke, shales gas and to support intermittent renewable which need much gas turbine as backup…

            this is only an example of what could happen when LENR break the project of Greenpeace to develop scarcity and enforce Malthusian rules, when it challenge Russian oil wealth, or Saudi wealth…

            There is no innocent organization, and NGO are not innocent. they play a game. question is which game? and with which budget…

            1 billion$ of communication budget can hurt much the development of anything they dislike.

            Maybe will we have to buy those lords like the oil companies have to do every day, to continue their business.

          • GreenWin

            Peter, I agree. And Greg Goble posed the exercise to bring these connections to light. The only saving grace here is in Congress’ desperate need to address the nuke waste issue (interesting how much corruption involves waste.)

            IF the Congressional committee overseeing the Nuclear Waste Act, is briefed on the status of the Navy/JWK patent and its potential to mitigate spent fuel – they may be persuaded to act. Ideally, they need to take direct control of the patent and assign it to an independent R&D organization.

            Apparently JWK is willing to finance the $250M development cost of a GeNiE prototype. A good deal for the patent owners, American people. Will Congress muster the cojones to withdraw the patent from DOE assignment to NSTech? I hope so.

  • Cliff

    I’m starting to think this kind of nonsense can be a real advantage to Rossi. The more the powerful energy interests dismiss him, the more likely he will be able to work in peace. Once working e-cats start to show up all around the world, it will be hard to stop, but now it might just be possible.

    Remember the fortunes that are at stake. How about the Saudi’s interests? The only thing they have going for them is oil. They’re completely corrupt and produce nothing, so if you’re looking to kill their goose that lays golden egg after golden egg, they might be willing to do something to stop you.

    All I can say is that Rossi needs to be careful and the more nay sayers, the safer he is.

    • fortyniner

      I tend to agree.

      The Syrian war that Cameron, Hague and Hollande are so desperate to start is in part about the wish of the Saudis and Qataris (and the aforementioned Bilderburgers) to build a gas pipeline across Syria that would break the Russian’s monopoly on natural gas supplies (fracking is also a part of this). If all goes to plan (unlikely in the extreme), the Saudis and Qataris would then have a much stronger grip on fossil fuel supplies in Europe.

      Clearly none of these psychopaths expect cold fusion to play any part in the ‘energy mix’. They are either completely ignorant of developments, or more likely, know that they are under control or will be shortly.

  • AlainCo

    another similar article I caught on my scoopit
    http://sco.lt/5jOYMr

    it is funny to see two world facing…
    the science blog live on a buble of ignorance…
    they ignore all, and still repeat the old tale of wikipedia and nature…

    in french the worst example is
    http://sco.lt/5FkenZ
    in a French equivalent of SciAm (much more academic than “pour la science” in France) an issue about “500 years of scientific controversies”, they reprint the usual fairy tale on cold fusion…

    it seems written by a known Nature author, who is absolutely no aware of what is happening today in LENR+…
    I imagine that in fact they are aware, but they quickly dismiss it and carefully don’t investigate.

    This is well explained by roland Benabou theory, and by Thomas Kuhn…

    We have all the theory, all the data to understand what is happening, all we need is being AWARE of it…

    Benabou repeat a quote “color-blind in a sea of red flags”.

  • TJK

    I answered their list. Something I agreed with, others are purely within their political ideology and not scientific thought.

    REALCLEARSCIENCE vs my statement:
    Cold Fusion Isn’t Real – table-top neutron generators use high kinetic energies to bank D and/or T onto metal hydride’s to generate neutrons and heat and YES fusion. They are commercially sold. The Rossi and others are claiming they can do just about the same thing without the high gamma. Its not a leap. BTW my book will be out detailing this shortly.

    Evolution Units All Biology – agreed. Is this really controversial?
    Animal Testing is Necessary – agreed.
    Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Necessary – total BS. Adult Stem Cells now have resulted in hundreds of treatments and cures. Their promotion of failure over scientific truth and success points to their tautology and ideology and lack of scientific skills.
    Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism – cause of autism is unknown but vaccines do contain mercury, carcinogens and do have a risks (good outways risk in general).
    Alternative Medicine is Bunk – really? First it’s a broad brush they painted here. Also, having benefited from the bunk myself makes me discount such a prejudicial statement.
    Hadron Collider Won’t Destroy the Earth – agreed. Next.
    Climate Change is Largely Man Made – egad. There has been no scientific proof, theory or model that has matched the observations or expectations of the climate/weather/global-warming/manbearpig. Co2 is not a pollutant. Its plant food and the US Gov’t promotes use of CO2 generators in greenhouses because its increases yield of crops. We are closer to the dangerous CO2 min than a dangerous CO2 max for life on earth. Idiots.
    GMO’s are safe – NO THEY ARE NOT! There is a statistical correlation to the radical increase in children food allergies, cancers, and yes autism with the introduction of GMO’s in our food supply. Vaccines…no. GMO’s…a definite maybe. The process of GE is not safe. The Gov’t has refused to do any scientific long-term safety studies on GMO’s. One cannot make the claim they are safe scientifically if the very methods to verify such a thing are not done. Again…idiots.

    • theotherguy

      Still waiting on that 3rd party validation on abiogenesis.

      • tjk

        I’m not singularly referring to the Rossi claim.
        Mitsubishi and the University of Chicago have all had recent patents regarding the creation of excess heat orders of magnitude above chemical using Deuterium and Palladium. Also have confirmed transmutation of elements.
        Usually they claim they can do the same with Hydrogen and Nickel (makes sense as Pd, and Ni have the same lattice structure) but I’ve never seen what your asking for yet. With the Pd-D reactions there are 3rd party verifications.

    • Jim

      RealClearScience has at least demonstrated that capitalism takes science seriously…

      …enough to want to distort and control its impacts.

      • AlainCo

        that is corporatist capitalism, which is not better than corporatist statism… In tha cas it is moue in the cheese, like are some academics, high executives.

        useful capitalist, the entrepreneurs, are not fully capitalist, but a bit irrational… they do the real innovation, like Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, LENR-cars, LENR-Cities…

        Corporatism and “mouse in the cheese” effect is useful when it allows for survival of non consensual activities… the problem is that corporate and governments today’s try to control more and more , and to only allow consensual activities… this is the tragedy behind LENR suppression…
        50 years ago, LENr would have been studied by unsupervised maverick hidden in various labs, with good uncontrolled funding… Today very few were not bullyied, and with small or no budget.

        too much control is death of the enterprise. Norbert Alter explain well that battle inside corps, between desire to control risk, and need to accept innovation and risky behaviors.

  • Brian Jackson

    The Smithsonian is coming out with a report “THE FUTURE OF ENERGY IDEAS AND INNOVATIONS” September 2 2013.

    I wonder if LENR will be mentioned by them?

    • MStone

      The Smithsonian does reports?

  • Jorge

    Can’t wait for the day when Rossi releases his theory. I might need to go on a short physics course in order to understand it, but it will be worth just to see these skeptics squirm.
    Jorge

    • Harry

      Check out this theory, I guarantee its better than anything Rossi can come up with.
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/111528808/ICCF17-Tech-PPT-CECR-with-SRI

      • Omega Z

        Harry

        We may have to wait & see.

        A Rossi theory may be more of a Rossi and Focardi theory.
        At the very least I think it will be some kind of collaborative theory. Not Rossi.

        It’s also possible several theories will be plausible as each approach presents different artifacts. But then there should be a single theory at the heart of the process.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    “Many Americans are being misled on serious scientific issues”: a correct statement.

    • georgehants

      Why the number 2.9013 will go down in the history of bad science
      http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/why-the-number-29013-will-go-down-in-the-history-of-bad-science

      • Andrew

        georgehants, thanks for sharing. Excellent article indeed.

      • Manuel Cruz

        Yet another convincing proof that psychology is not a science.

        • georgehants

          Andrew, any unknown is science, any attempt by science to marginalise areas that fall outside their ridiculous reductionist Dogma does no more than make them look very foolish.
          Who do you think should research the unknown in any area if it is not science.