Rossi Defends Hot Fusion Research

Hot fusion has been in the news lately, especially after the National Ignition Facility reported acheiving an ‘overunity event’, in which more energy was produced than consumed for a tiny fraction of a second. There have been some comments on the Journal of Nuclear Physics recently about the wastefulness and futility of hot fusion research in the light of the levels energy production and efficiency that can be achieved in LENR reactions — especially with the E-Cat.

In response to one comment on the topic, Andrea Rossi made some points yesterday that some might consider surprising given the work he is involved in and the results he has achieved.

I do not agree with your superficial comment for the following reasons:
1- the scientists who have dedicated their life to the hot fusion endevour are extremely good, for sure among the best nuclear physicists around
2- the ITER and the NIF have generated the development of technological applications in other fields, thanks to the research: paradigmatic example is the development in the field of the superconductors
3- the money invested has not been wasted, because it is gone in work made by workers, which means wages
4- the hot fusion is more difficult to obtain than the LENR.
5- I know a very high level scientist who has worked hardly for the ITER, and still is strongly interested to the LENR and has worked in experiments with the E-Cat. I have learnt much from him. We have much to learn from the hot fusion and I have a great respect for all the great scientists working for it
6- the hot fusion plants are also battlefields in which new generations of nuclear physics maintain their readiness for other applications; for example, NIF physicists are working on the decommissioning of nuclear weapons.

Rossi is sometimes quite a contrarian compared to many supporters of LENR, and his thoughts above will probably be unpopular to some readers here. He takes what I would call a pragmatic approach in many instances, and will look for information and knowledge from any source that is available, and if he benefit from the work of people involved in hot fusion he’ll use it, and give those people credit.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”
    Mark Twain

    George Miley is one those scarce men from the hot fusion community. (He was the editor-in-chief of hot fusion journals in 1989.)

  • BroKeeper

    Chum, Rossi has found himself stuck between a rock and a hard place he may not have anticipated. Give it a little more time.

    • Fortyniner

      Rossi has been compromising since he began downplaying the home unit idea. He knows that playing the establishment’s game is the only way that any part of his dreams will be fulfilled, but he also knows that once the first publicly-acknowledged cold fusion unit is operating that all bets are off.

  • BroKeeper

    Sister Christina, I love your eternal hope, unfortunately there are way too many posing Christians or “weeds” among the faithful in this country who are giving Christianity a black eye. Too much talking-the-talk and not enough walking-the-walk. Still keep up the hope – there is a bigger plan. God bless you.

  • GreenWin

    I still find this statement from a Senior Officer and founder of the US Deptartment of Energy hot fusion program, the most telling:

    “One of the biggest obstacles is the world-wide tokamak lobby, which
    perpetuates the fraud that Hirsch, Trivelpiece and I foisted on the
    country in the 1970’s when we started the big tokamak ball rolling.”
    Dr. Robert Bussard PhD, Asst. Director DOE Thermodynamic Reaction Div.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Van den Bogaert had his patents sequestered by the Belgian Ministry of Defense.

    The point is that there is far more than what meets the eye in the F&P story.

  • fritz194

    I have no problem with public and private “funded” science – and there are even some positive aspects with lobbying.
    Hot fusion was interesting in the seventies – and has to be interesting for the next 40 years if you keep in mind how much money was put on that card. You cannot stop that train.
    But the world is changing – and there is a new demand for clean and safe energy source.
    The question is – how is it possible to redirect funding for the “new” fire.
    There is lots of inertia, people, lives, careers, money, investments – and this redirection might take few years.
    In the end – there will be a discussion what can go wrong using the scientific method – and what can go wrong with public and private funding – do we need more support and courage for disruptive technologies – and how can we handle that – if useful – in the future.
    Maybe we need a split into private and public science to reach that goals – a mix of both ends up in the filth we have right now – the future of mankind is too important to be controlled by a minority.

    • GreenWin

      You can stop any train fritz. Just cut the fuel source. 🙂

      • fritz194

        A train has high weight and lots of energy stored in inertia, once moving. e=m*v^2/1 ;-))))
        Even if you cut the fuels source – there is a long rundown.

    • BroKeeper

      Money will always accelerate new technologies. Once IH resurrects and transforms an old coal burring power plant and the cost of electricity initially cuts the bills in half, then the utility CEOs and CFOs that answer to the stockholders will wake up. If all is predicted correctly the lights will be turned on within the PTBs within a year or two. Isn’t capitalism great? (I didn’t say perfect).

  • Sanjeev

    One should note that there is a big difference between physics and biology. Biology is relatively open science (fortunately), and the biologists, not being enslaved by theories or fantasies, do empirical research more often and do believe in “impossible” things such as Placebo and Kundalini Syndrome.

    Physicists on the other hand, have become more like a religion, they usually dictate. Hot fusion is a piece of cake, and its worth burning a few 100 billion and 50 years on it because some strange theory says so. It took exactly ZERO replications to establish the “reality” of Higgs boson. LENR, is still a pseudoscience after hundreds of replications. Solar power is “not practical” we do not have the tech. Aren’t the double standards obvious here ?

    • Charles Beaudette in Excess heat make a similar separation between the scientific method of chemist and biologist, and the one of nuclear physicists.

      Chemists, like biologist are experience with experiments hard to replicate, where ou work for years, with massive failures, and few success that prove your point. example is Dolly cloning which took 200 try before a single success.

      LENR is pure chemistry, both on the sensibility to environment (very similar to catalysis chemistry, or semiconductors), and on the measurement method : calorimetry.

      In a way Physicist are not concerned by cold fusion. it is a chemistry process, in chemistry environment, with chemistry methods to reveal it, and as expected only good chemists succeeded in replicating LENR (except one physicist who worked as intern with a great electrochemist, Heinz Gerischer)…

      Chemist as practical science also have more problem for funding, with short term contracts, need to make show and fight for funding… This participated the misunderstanding with nuclear physicist.

      Nuclear physicist on the opposite are used with experiments which can be replicated identically, and which are quite predictable.

      They are also living in a governmental context, with infinite budget, with life long contracts.

      they also live in a context where theory is sound, and even when there are found anomalies, finding theory happen quickly, or at least evidence are so clear that denial is hard…

      Cold fusion was a tragedy of applying nuclear physicists method to chemistry context.

      did you hear a chemist which denied LENR, after reading the papers ?

      for the scientific context, this article may show that this fiasco is not an exception

  • Tim

    There’s nothing wrong with approaching fusion from both ends. Sure, we all thing that cold fusion will have sooner results than hot fusion, but if they can get the hot variety to work, then it would become extremely useful.

    • artefact

      ” then it would become extremely useful”
      In what way would it be better than lenr?

      • Job001

        The fundamental difference isn’t science, it’s financial.
        That which is of big scale, high market hurdle, high cost high complexity requiring regulation or military secrecy or monopolistic in nature is exploitable, low risk, and high profit.

        Commodities or solar or the air we breath or LENR which anyone could potentially use are not exploitable.

        Consequently, LENR is anathema to the 1% including all mainstream science funding. Science was “financially cowed” into “mendacious marketing” against CF and LENR+ by fear of funding loss.

        Everyone needs to survive, there-in lays the subtle twist of corruption.

        • hum, I don’t see that problem.

          the 1% of money you talks have been f***ed like us by the 1% physicists who put LENR under their Nobel statue.

          The 1% are just waking up, and competing to make money with it… don’t worry.

          the problem is the 1% academic, not the 1% business.

          see shechtmann story (not the wikipravda version)

          of this article describing current pathetic science system

          much worse than our banking or business system.

          • Job001

            Understand and disagree for these reasons;

            Follow the money

            Science bias follows funding

            Scientists are not self serving/corrupt/for fun/no reason; money/ego

            Similar story in pharmaceuticals, lack of repeatability follows funding

            Scientists often diss each others theories – i.e. marketing/money not science

            Buying patent obstruction was not science but money

            Keeping funding flow to hot fusion is money corruption not science

            Bias explains human behavior best.




            • “I trust those hungry for dollars a thousand times more than those hungry for honors and rank.” (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)

              money is a problem in science, but aristocracy, conformism, fight for honors, funding, fashion, is worst than pure greed…

              greed is more toxic when it lead to conformism to please money, to please bureaucrats.
              the problem with bureaucrats is that they don’t need any reality to be happy, just conformity.

              at least money want something that works, and does not bring you to jail.
              for bureaucrats there is such problem with legality or reality, as they own the law and the righteousness.

              • Job001

                Money is central to all of your quotes, with different bias twists. We agree on another level and bias is the issue.
                An interesting aspect of this is that most scientists are very good people, very smart, logical, big well developed left brains who tend to have underdeveloped intuitive brains, unlike Einstein.
                Many have no clue about their biases and think they are “logical”. Recent neurological science results are revealing.

      • GreenWin

        There are NO benefits to hot fusion over cold unless you think flushing billions of dollars, dangerous radiation, and another century of dicking around is a benefit.

        • BroKeeper

          And stuck with an old, costly and nearly obsolete rickity grid.

          • JDM

            and vulnerable…

            • Obvious

              Fear of vulnerability is an important key to the “why” of extreme levels of fusion research grant money. It is not entirely about making power for the world, nor making sure that the old A-bombs will still work. These are side issues. It is also about making sure enough brain power is still available should new bombs need to be designed and built. The old-timers that made the first ones are nearly all dead. That expertise cannot simply be replaced should the “need” arise to make some more. It needs to be drawn from a pool of existing experts in the theories and practices required to make them.

              • GreenWin

                No. You are utterly wrong. One of the most primitive applications of technology is to blow stuff up. It takes little intellect really. The present level weapons of mass destruction is excessive. What we need now is a new school of experts to decommission these overbuilt arsenals. Just as we need a new school to decommission the utterly outdated and faulty grid system.

                What seem un-obvious to you sir, is your old world and ways are being decommissioned.

                “Your sons and your daughters

                Are beyond your command

                Your old road is

                Rapidly agin’
                Please get out of the new one

                If you can’t lend a hand

                For your times they are a-changin'” B. Dylan

                • Obvious

                  I wasn’t defending the idea. It was a statement of fact. Look at all the agencies that funnel money into fusion, even underhandedly from other budgets.

                • GreenWin

                  Weapons should be built only by DOD agencies on DOD budgets. Pretending NIF is a benevolent energy project is as futile as targeting higher power fast walkers. Your times they are a-changed, sir.

                • Obvious

                  You are utterly wrong about my point. Whether you or I think we need or don’t need more bombs or high tech weapons is beside the point. The DOD is charged with making sure that the brains are available if and when they want them. Funding very high tech experiments both openly and under the table is a very effective way of both ensuring the next generation of DOD brains are trained and practiced, and conveniently a good way to check them out to see if they are the type that the DOD would like to bring on board, if they want.

                  Hopefully we can make this attitude obsolete one day. So far we aren’t there yet. Dylan wrote that song 40 years ago. Times change slower than we would like, apparently.

                • GreenWin

                  Times have changed markedly if one considers the disruptive transition the planet is undergoing. Turning plowshares to swords can be done by a handful of trained minds – a military industrial complex is, as General Eisenhower put it, gravely to be regarded. LENR produces abundance. An abundant world is rich in resources, minimizing fear of scarcity. Tribal disputes over dwindling resources have no foundation. Standards of living rise globally. Food, fresh water, education, information access all expand – because there IS enough for everyone.

                  Superior powers have ruled out destructive use of nuclear weapons on Earth. Building bigger faster “smarter” nukes is futile – just check with the command at Rendelsham Forest. Acceptance is the key to these new times. Times have changed far more dramatically than Dylan even imagined.

                  “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.” General Dwight D Eisenhower

                • Obvious

                  Did you ever see that newer Outer Limits episode (I think it was OL) where a peaceful, advanced, post apocalypse world had to deal with a returning spaceship containing the military elite that began the final world war and hid in space from the destruction? Paradoxically some of the new Earthers ended up secretly reactivating an old military weapon to destroy the spaceship before it could land, in order to save the world from the old thinkers that were responsible for ruining much of the world, before they could poison the world again with military thinking (going against their own laws and ideals in the process).

    • georgehants

      Tim, that is the whole point, science has not been “approaching fusion
      from both ends” it has closed it’s mind to Cold Fusion and wasted
      billions of dollars and millions of working hours on just one end of the
      subject, hot fusion.

  • Sanjeev

    Looks like Rossi has learned some diplomacy or has a good PR adviser now. The people running the hot fusion dog and pony show are powerful and there is no gain in picking up a fight where you are bound to lose. He did not pick up any fights with people defaming him in mainstream media also. It looks like a well thought decision instead of knee jerk suing or may be he does not care, there is no use of creating conflict when you have already won.
    I agree with the point that the scientists working on hot fusion are innocent individual and are simply doing their job (for a handsome pay), while fully aware that this cannot be done. The main culprits are people who saw this as a good money magnet and kept it going for decades after it was realized that hot fusion is not a viable approach at this time.

    • I don’t know if Rossi is sincere or not, but he makes some good points and what he says is the best official position in real world.

  • Obvious

    Too bad Mills isn’t so generous when it comes to Rossi.

    Quote from today, discussing Papp engines, classical physics forum –

    “From years of experience, helium plasmas do not make power. Neither
    do any other noble gas plasmas. Adding hydrogen to heated nickel
    powder doesn’t either, and Ni and protons do not undergo fusion at
    relatively room temperature. In my opinion, this is the Rossi E-Cat
    engine or the Madoff engine investment.”

    • Allan Shura

      What he does believe (from January 14) is that his 9 sq. in. prototype device can be built in a matter of weeks so we anticipate we will see this in the coming days.

    • Gerard McEk

      We will see who will be the first to penetrate the market. I think it will be Rossi et al.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yeah, those hot fusion guys are brilliant. Eventually they’ll get the full credit they deserve for optimizing the Piantelli effect.

    • GreenWin

      Read Obvious’ comments for the plan to flip the script. Gee, maybe the clowns that slandered P&F aren’t so bad. BS. They WILL accept the consequences of their actions.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        But the knee pads and bib will make him invincible.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        No. No. There was a guy named Rossi who actually came up with it.

        I’ve had enough of your conspiracy theories. Shut up. Look! Breaking news about Justin Bieber!

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah, it really took a physicist like Francesco Piantelli to take LENR onto the next stage. Fleischmann and Pons were just chemists.

  • I mostly agree except for

    ” the money invested has not been wasted, because it is gone in work made by workers, which means wages”

    that is the better pay people to break stone than…. than find a useful job…

    The Hot fusion research is interesting, not because it pay people to do something useless, but because it is research, engineering, challenges for all workers, and because humanity have learn many things…
    I don’t feel now it was the best investment, but who knows if hot fusion will not lead progress in superconductors, nuclear safety, seismic detection , or computer science…

    CERN invented the web, Pierre Gilles de Gennes invented a particle detector that is used today in medicine to lower X-ray dose, astrology let to GPS satelites.

    anyway with the billion used in hot fusion we could have tested much more hopeless ideas, more crazy ideas.
    Big Science is a problem of modern science paradigm.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Sorry I have to disagree with your hindsight is 20/20 perspective. If there were no LENR you would be praying for them succeed against all odds. And no one knows the outcome until they try. They might even succeed and power the world yet.

      • Sanjeev

        One must question why billions are being thrown into something whose outcome cannot be known until it is tried. Its a big gamble and a huge waste of time. We have an absolutely free hot fusion device hanging in the sky for all to exploit. One must wonder why there is no project at war footing to develop solar power to generate TW of power for dirt cheap prices. The tech is 100 years old, simple and proven. All it needs is sand as raw material. We have enough sunlight (more than 10000 times than the world needs). Yet all they have done is banned research on more than 20% efficient PV cells because – “national security” !

        The only reason I can think of is that solar (and also lenr) eventually becomes distributed energy tech, with each person controlling and owning their own energy thus becoming independent. Hot fusion is by design a centralized energy source controlled by a few, thus keeping the power in their hands and making common man dependent on them. Since the tech development and funding are controlled by people who like to rule and keep others as slaves, this has not happened and we see giant project as such hot fusion, which is an attempt to delay distributed energy and keep the control going for as long as possible.

        • Fortyniner

          I think the simplest way to view the hot fusion fiasco is to see those who funded what seemed like a good idea initially as gamblers. Like many gamblers, when they lost (no reactors, no superweapons), they bet even more money in an attempt to retrieve their position – and so it went on. Of course, the politicians would never have taken the gamble if they had not been led on by science ‘advisors’ intent on creating and maintaining a very long gravy train for their own benefit and that of their friends.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, it must have started as an honest attempt to control fusion for peaceful energy generation. I have read some inside stories on vortex forum on the matter. It seems that when the experiment failed, the original scientists, who envisioned hot fusion, left the place, while some other people took over, fully knowing that it cannot be done. They kept demanding more money and in the name of science, it continued till today. I do not know whether to believe these stories, but they are interesting.

            You must wonder why they keep announcing a microwatt of power gain (which is actually a big loss, when you account for the total input energy, they phrase it as if it was a gain), as soon as there comes a time of budget allocation. This year, however, Obama has announced a budget cut for hot fusion. They still got hundreds of millions anyway.

            • GreenWin

              It’s called throwing good money after bad. The fiasco must end sooner than later. Think of the better uses the tax dollars could go to.

            • BroKeeper

              Actualy: “… in the name of scientists,..”.

      • I agree that hot fusion may work, like EmDrive, less than cold fusion which is proven,…
        Nassim Nicholas taleb describe that as an option, that if you buy it, you can obtain if lucky a big gain, and if probable, nothing worse that the price…

        Tokamak are really overpriced, for no expected chance until few decade.
        LENr is really underpriced, for proven phenomenon and big potential.
        EmDrive is very speculative, but very cheap, and gain can be mega-huge…

        using a trillion$ on hotfusion as we have done already, is not the best bet.

        anyway thos trillion, have just a thousands less chance to produce a big change than cold fusion, at a million more cost, for less impact.

        better ivest in EmDrive and LENR… and many other stupid cheap ideas.

  • BroKeeper

    Politics: “the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp. the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power” Friendship is not the mainstay here but conflict for power. Rossi is a very friendly moral person but he is also a realist.

  • georgehants

    Christina, peace and understanding is so important, but I think you will find that even Jesus became very annoyed at the “wrong doings” outside of the temple and had to act against what he felt was in error.

  • Obvious

    Rossi has shown in his response that he is much more wise than the characture of him that the mass media often paints. It is not about him sucking up to the establishment. It shows he has a broader view of science, respect for reality, respect for research, respect for people, and he is above petty infighting between various disciplines. He knows that the goal is the same, and there are possibly more ways than one to reach it. And certainly figuratively pooping in the well never advanced anyone’s future prospects, especially when you and your friends might need to drink from the well at some point

    • georgehants

      Obvious, would you like to give your opinion as to the treatment received by P&F from the establishment regarding their Cold Fusion discovery 24 years ago and since?
      Are you saying that “pooping in the well never advanced anyone’s future prospects,” means that we always teach our children to only care about themselves and never consider others?
      By Rossi being “wise” do you mean that it is wise to abandon Truth if that is most to one’s own advantage, but is to the detriment of others?
      If you are a scientist may I request that rather than coming back with ten pages of retoric, you simply answer the questions plainly as you see them.
      Thank you

      • Obvious

        People can be jerks, but being a jerk back solves nothing but proves that the number of jerks can be increased.

        Pooping in someone else’s well might indeed improve the sales of your own water.

        Truth is an abstract. In the long run, injuring others to further oneself usually furthers no one, and often increases the likelihood of your own personal injury by others by condoning it in the first place by example.

        • GreenWin

          Jesus Christ. Since when is demanding moral and ethical behavior from leading intellects considered “pooping in someone else’s well?” Calling out a corrupt scientist for corruption is the antithesis of “pooping” Obvious/Willy. It is called cleaning up the mess the aweholes that shat upon the entire village created. Try and get this straight.

          • Obvious

            It depends what side of the argument you are on. I am sure the jerks think they are right, and think the ones arguing with them are the jerks. They hot fusion folks think the cold fusion folks are messing with their well. And vice versa. Calling the other side jerks, though, won’t encourage them to get on your side. The best revenge is success.

            But watch out. The hot fusion folks might actually pull it off. They certainly have enough help, even if it might not be the best idea. How many here will change alias and jump on the other bandwagon or just fade away if the hot fusion gang get a real operating device working and to market first?

            We demand ethical behavior, but it behooves us then, to be ethical ourselves. History is the ultimate judge of success, but is written by the winners, not the whiners.

            • georgehants

              Obvious, your point of view certainly clearly explains why we still live in a World of terrible want on the one hand compared with obscene wealth for others.
              I find it difficult to understand how you can state such opinions without once considering (seemingly) the damage and suffering caused by such cover-up’s of corruption and incompetence.
              Could you just explain please, do you consider all the people who have been mistreated by the winners in history as “whiners”?
              You say “We demand ethical behaviour” I may say in your case it seems you certainly do not and seem to want to justify all unethical behaviour regardless of the pain caused.
              I do respect your honesty in these matters.

              • Obvious

                We can demand whatever we want, or be appalled at others’ behavior ad infinitum. But if we do not ourselves act, then nothing changes.
                Preaching to the choir makes no new converts. One must proselytize the sinners themselves.

                • georgehants

                  The Internet is and will be a powerful tool and Websites such as this do and will make a difference.
                  That is Action.
                  Your quote “One must proselytize the sinners themselves.” sounds a little to biblical for me.

                • Obvious

                  It does sound a bit too biblical even to me. But it is a matter of belief that needs to change. If everyone spent as much time questioning the actual perpetrators of the scientific malfeasance, as has been spent questioning my positions, then perhaps some progress might be made. I’m not saying that hasn’t been done, maybe it has. But attacking the perpetrators just makes them reinforce their positions. We must be conciliatory, even if it goes against our feelings, in order to facilitate change. Crushing the opponents doesn’t seem to be in the cards. We must accept that they do have money and power behind them, and that they are willing to destroy lives and careers if they feel threatened enough. I believe it is possible to convince the opposition if we don’t antagonize them into a retaliatory position.

                • Obvious

                  And websites such as this do help. I wandered in here expecting a bunch of nuts going off about impossible stuff. There is some of that, but no where near as much as I expected. Nothing like the apparent insanity on some of the news-related comments found on several sites that polarize almost instantly.

                  The info I found here has been helpful, and some criticism I get here gets my brain working in the thoughtful mode. I intend to try out some experiments to see if I can pull off an excess heat device.

                • GreenWin

                  No one’s preaching to any choir. The sobering truth is the folly and corruption of the past is coming to roost. And those responsible for suppressing or corrupting the evidence of LENR will not be saved, even by claim to privilege. Privilege in unlawful programs does not exist.

              • Obvious

                The people that have been wronged are not the whiners, they are victims, pure and simple. The whiners are the ones who complain about injustice, but do nothing but complain about it.

    • psi2u2

      I concur.

  • Christopher Calder

    Lockheed Martin’s microwave fusion reactor design is certainly worth pursuing. Lockheed Martin has a long history of producing results, and they also have a long history of keeping secrets. They claim to have the basic concept proven, and are now engineering a marketable product. The cost for electricity produced by their simplified hot fusion technique could be as low or even lower than LENR. If I had money to invest, I would put some into Lockheed Martin stock. Their fusion project is no longer a secret, but the technical details may be secret and very interesting. Unlike LENR, however, you could probably never fit their reactor in a automobile.

    I do not think government investing money in expensive laser driven hot fusion methods is justified at this late date. As far as I know, Lockheed Martin did their fusion work with their own money.

    • GreenWin

      Chris, Lockheed makes little of “their own money.” That is, money from the private sector. Lockheed receives 82% of their revenue from sales to government – which is of course taxpayer money.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        So, GreenWin, you seem to be putting Lockheed down for being a defense contractor…..why not give em a break for developing a non-defense energy technology? I figure Lockheed made their money fair and square, and if they choose to spend THEIR capital to develop clean cheap power….more power to them.

        • GreenWin

          Iggy, why would you think LM is not developing LENR for their major client – government? This means systems like APUs for battlefield or behind the lines support. Since Lockheed rarely produces products for non-military applications, I’ll assume their MO for LENR is unchanged. Having said that, LM could receive significant kudos for developing LENR for humanitarian situations. If they do, higher power to them!

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      “In June 2013, LPP attended a Google conference of fusion research companies using various devices. The companies included Tri-Alpha Energy (backed by billionaire Paul Allen), General Fusion (backed by the Canadian government), and the Advanced Development division of Lockheed Martin Corporation. Comparing all their results showed that no one was as close to ignition as LPP. The nearest runner-up was Tri-Alpha, but LPP’s temperature-time-density result exceeded theirs by 2000 times.”

  • Fortyniner

    A 13-year-old British schoolboy is claiming to have succeeded in producing neutrons from some kind of H-H fusion device he built at his school.

    He has a blog (linked from page above) but there is very little technical info other than that the reaction is decribed as a ‘star in a jar’ (arc/plasma?). It doesn’t seem to be a hoax, but details and verification are very thin on the ground. Interestingly, the BBC is reporting the story.

    • Obvious

      I’m pretty sure this is another Farnsworth Fusor. They are (fairly) easy to build. They don’t produce excess energy though. Or at least no one has figured out how to get them to make excess power.

  • Chris I

    1) Actually they are mostly plasma physicists. The nuclear ones aren’t so directly needed, their work can mosly be done studying collisions in accelerator beams which provides most all the information needed for the plasma approach.

    2) Like may things. Byproducts can certainly compensate a lot of the problem when an effort turns out all for naught. This doesn’t justify the effort continuing. Not with the same goal at least; no doubt it can be reorganized as suitable.

    3) LOL if he really sees it this way I’ll ask him to pay me wages for doing work on something per se useless. His money won’y be wasted seeing as it becomes my wages, eh? 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

    4) Exactly. It’s much more difficult than what he is doing. It’s also much more difficult to swim across the ocean than to sail or fly across it.

    No objection to 5) nor 6) but, just like 2), they certainly don’t mean these things should keep the same goal if he demonstrates they are no match for his work, marketwise. Ubi major, minor cessat. What I envision is that ITER could veer into being a facility for astrophysics.

  • GreenWin

    Dr. Rossi makes many excellent points. Of course the field of hot fusion, like nuclear energy, fossil fuels, agriculture, pharma, fast food, etc. is populated with good, well-meaning people. One cannot fault a scientist for accepting a good paying job – even if the end product is of questionable merit. Indeed, the work on ITER is producing some useful developments in materials. The superconducting niobium titanium/tin alloys may prove useful in other fields – despite the need to be cooled to -269°C with supercritical Helium.

    The question of ITER’s folly is not the integrity of its scientists. It is a question of scientific direction funded by the people’s money. Such direction should best benefit the people who pay for it. The case against hot fusion funding is simple: it has cost the human race $250B over 62 years – yet produced not one Watt of useful energy. Most damaging is it has done so at the expense of dozens of alternative approaches to fusion – some hot, some cold. Few of the alternatives have received anything but superficial funding. In the case of LENR/cold fusion – there has been only miniscule funding in a handful of countries. Yet the preponderance of 23 years of evidence from cold fusion experiments proves this wrong-headed. One of the alternatives that has had a difficult funding experience is Inertial Electrodynamic Confinement, developed by Dr. Robert Bussard, a Princeton educated PhD in plasma physics and a father of the US hot fusion program. Toward the end of his career, Dr. Bussard had become disenchanted with ITER and tokamak hot fusion programs:

    “One of the biggest obstacles is the world-wide tokamak lobby, which perpetuates the fraud that Hirsch, Trivelpiece and I foisted on the country in the 1970’s when we started the big tokamak ball rolling.

    Magnetic confinement fusion is a misnomer, as magnetic fields can NOT confine a plasma, only constrain its motion towards walls. The entire history of the MagConf program has been to reduce transport to neo-classical (not turbulent or instability-driven) losses. And THEN the machines are all inherently and inevitably huge and cost too much and make too much power to ever be economically useful — as the utilities have been telling the AEC/DoE for 30 years. No matter, the global tokamak program provides jobs for hudreds of thousands of people in many countries, and is a safe place to put political pork funding, simply because it IS NO THREAT TO OIL – it won’t ever work, but it sounds good to the untutored public…” Dr. Robert W. Bussard, 2006, frmr Assistant Director Controlled Thermodynamic Reaction Division, Atomic Energy Commission – US Department of Energy.

    • BroKeeper

      Perhaps it’s the “new” high priced toilet seat used to flush
      funds down for clandestine black ops.

      • GreenWin

        Bussard does not soft pedal this. He calls tokamak a “fraud.” Coming from a Senior Officer of the US Dept of Energy – it’s pretty damning.

  • stefan

    He might just interact with a few scientists with background in Hot fusion. My bet is that 90% of them are quite reasonable and intelligent researchers. Remember the vocal and empowered majority is seldom the majority.

  • Bernie777

    Dr. Rossi is a total entrepreneur. The longer he can keep the Feds spending huge amounts on hot fusion and not on LENR the more money he will make. He realizes LENR is a technology that will not be denied.

  • Private Citizen

    “3- the money invested has not been wasted, because it is gone in work made by workers, which means wages”

    This is simply a formulation of the Broken Window Fallacy

    • Chris I

      Where is the destruction in hot fusion research?

      I fully agree with the fallacy in relation to those that promote war as an economic stimulus. But if a tycoon chooses to salary some folks that are simply no use, if this is an arbitrary choice rather than a necessity, just like giving to charity, then it is purely a matter of wealth distribution. Social welfare does the same, but without making up some lame excuse for a salary. In the best of systems the unemployed must be available if there is actual work to be done. Even without this there is no destruction, no waste, only a choice of making the distribution less extremely uneven. Which, of course, is not quite the right purpose for research projects to have.

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe nobody would blame the researchers working on ITER and other hot fusion projects. I think that most of us blame the decision makers who deliberately have discredited Cold Fusion, without even taking the time to do proper tests and look at the results or even frigged the results and then decided that even a single dollar wasn’t worth the effort in CF. At the same time they agreed with billions of dollars which may not even lead to a new energy source for our future generations. If only one percent of those billions were spend on Cold Fusion, we may have had now a new energy source and Europe would have been not dependent of Russian gas!

    • Frechette

      ” Europe would have been not dependent of Russian gas!” which would make Europe less reluctant to put Russia’s nose out of joint. Another war is all we need especially in Eastern Europe. Everything has consequences. Technology is a two edged sword.

  • georgehants

    It is very sad to see Mr. Rossi distorting the Truth to appease the scientific establishment in this way.
    I am sure he has his own personal reasons for deciding that this course of action is best for his personal advantage.
    Unfortunately once again the Truth is sacrificed for a presumed gain in other areas.
    course many of the individual scientists are genuine in all areas, but
    the overall establishments position followed by most scientists is
    undoubtedly wrong.
    So P&F and all great scientists who have been
    and are defiled by the scientific establishment are sacrificed again for
    “prudent” reasons.
    My respect for Mr. Rossi in this area has just reversed to a considerable degree.

    • BroKeeper

      Yes, unfortunately he is in the political arena now. Survival is playing the game.

    • Job001

      It is good news that he does some marketing and shows understands of the treacherous terrain and has a strong desire to succeed regardless.
      I’m not big on phony things like absolute truth or utopia or assumptions forever or dogma or unconditional trust. I favor observations, data, and correlations while never forgetting the unknown, R squared residuals nor the limited data set.
      Good to see you back George!

  • BroKeeper

    Andrea Rossi cannot bite the hand that feeds his peer reviewers and patent approvers. However, there are good points what he says, especially point #1. Hopefully 100s of billions of dollars will not be considered wasted. IMO in hind-site NASA has put their billions to use far better than NIF or ITER – the near future will tell for sure.