KSL TV Covers Pons Fleischmann Anniversary, Discusses Ongoing Cold Fusion Research

I was pleased to see that Salt Lake City-based KSL TV news has covered the 25th anniversary of the Pons-Fleischmann announcement in its home town at the University of Utah with a news report that discusses about the ongoing activity in cold fusion research. A story by Ed Yeats features comments by Michael McKubre at SRI International who defends the work of Pons and Fleischmann, and says that he expects cold fusion products to be used in commercial settings within five years.

Here’s the TV report:

It’s good to see a story that talks about the continuing story, rather than the focusing on the ‘failure’ of Pons and Fleischmann. It seemed to me like Yeats and the KSL news anchors felt a sense of pride that the cold fusion story was not dead, and that at some point there could be public vindication for Pons and Fleischmann.

  • bachcole

    Dear my fellow LENR goof-balls,

    I have been corresponding with a Chinese businessman for reasons unrelated to LENR, and I sent to him the link to the Chinese site about Tom Darden in Chinese. He most kindly sent me back a translation of the I think part of the site, and here it is. I have included some of his own words so that you can get get a flavor for his English. I have made no changes whatsoever to his text.


    Some of my elders were Buddhists, they believe “Good people will be rewarded”.They
    don’t eat any meat, they are a vegetarian. They spend time in
    praying(maybe not pray,but chanting?) I don’t know how to explain this
    behavior in english. I think it’s pretty well. Someone who have belief
    must have a kind-hearted.

    don’t know the theory in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, but it’s sounds
    good. Zero pollution, Low cost, Unlimited source of energy, that must
    be a amazing invention. I read the link which you give.The mainly point
    of website is to say, “Chinese man from the institution of nation low
    carbon source named SI JIA DAI conduct cooperation with Mr.Tom Darden on
    clean energy technology. Under the background of global energy
    shortage, new clean energy is spring up. Low-temperature nickel reaction
    technology is most efficient and low-cost up to now. They use nickel to
    generate electricity.Not only saving cost, but also environmental,
    no radio element, no air pollution. Today green development has become a
    global consensus. Mr.Tom’team has hugely-experience in generation
    reaction of nickel. That cooperation could bring America ‘s most
    sophisticated technological advantage to china. Mutual benefit will be
    achieved. With the clear section of the country on energy policy support
    growing, chinese company become a strategic partner with Industrial
    Heat, its prospects will be broader.”


    Just in case anyone didn’t believe Google Translate, which I could understand. Some day the name “Mr. Tom Darden” will be like the name “Mr. George Westinghouse”.

  • georgehants

    From Vortex with thanks, should please Roger Bird on page and any open-minded scientists, as these areas are “fringe science” just like Cold Fusion.
    Today science says, never investigate, never Research, always just debunk and deny anything unacceptable to our religious beliefs.
    [Vo]:Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners “lunatic charlatans”
    http:[email protected]/msg92313.html

  • Fortyniner

    Presumably Fleishmann’s work at IMRA, France, forms a part of Toyota’s CF IP.

    “Martin Fleischmann played a major role at the beginning of Cold Fusion in France. Georges Lonchampt, who was then working at the French Atomic Energy Commission in Grenoble met him and Stanley Pons several times when they were working at IMRA in Sophia Antipolis. Fleischmann gave him full details of the experimental procedure, and even gave him two of their ICARUS 2 cells. Thanks to his help, Longchampt and his colleagues managed to duplicate, at least partly, the original work. Lonchampt was one of the very few who duplicated exactly the Fleischmann and Pons experiment. Without his help there is no doubt that the initial program started in France in 1989 would have ended quickly after.”

    Dr. Jean-Paul Biberian

  • bachcole

    “Only when it happens will they believe”. But it has happened. It is not about science. It is about trust vs. greed powered contempt for those who do not buy into the dominant paradigm.

  • guess why, I’m banned because of previous reaction .

    only a very short comment passed the censorship…

    Epic failure some say…

  • Gerrit

    only KSL has covered the 25 years anniversary (with both a positive and a negative voice).
    No other news outlet – except maybe one italian – has brought a story.

    A deafening silence, it makes me wonder:

    a) Do the science reporters feel uncomfortable with writing an “old-style” scathing story, because they have become aware that maybe, after all, something is happening. But at the same time they can’t write a positive story, because they fear being ridiculed. And therefore they choose to write nothing.

    b) It has dropped of the radar completely, because nothing has been published in Nature since early 1990s.

    • bachcole

      Excellent analysis. I vote for (a). They know that something is happening here, but they aren’t sure what it is, and they aren’t sure which way the wind is blowing.

      The TV and written copy were the same, and although mostly positive, I thought that they did not come even close to the extent of the tsunami that is headed their way.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Since Bachcole went for a), I’ll argue for b) then.
      I think magazines such as Nature and Science have way too much influence over the general (established) publishing process. I do not trust them to be objective or open to new ideas and I also suspect that their publishing system is flawed by letting them dictate what is allowed science and what not (such as CF).

      I would propose a new publishing institute that has nothing to do with membership and sponsoring, but instead receives a steady income through a permanent government fund. As tax payers we would all fund such an institute and I have no problem with that. It would be a little bit like DARPA I guess, but:
      – with strong founding statutes
      – totally independent in their publishing choices (based on aforementioned strong founding statutes)
      – guaranteed funding so no government threats depending on the current administration
      – no business ties at all (see guaranteed funding also)
      – has an open archive of all publications and is responsible for their availability

      Hopefully a CF breakthrough will lead to a rethink of the whole scientific review process…

      • I think that it is naive to imagine that the problem is money.
        It is honors and rank , peer review, lack of interest in practical things.

        garage inventors want success, but they make the real changes , because they are connected to the reality, not to the books, to the career.

        we need simply more disorder, less control, less academics, more academies who battle and disagree, less consensus, more dissenters…

        in the new world of today, the problem is not money, it is denial, comfort, beliefs, new religions, the crazy desire to control, to reduce faults, failures, frauds, errors.

        it is what is killing corporate productivity, executive motivation… desire to control., to secure.
        it increase fragility of all systems, corporations, science, politics, humanity, immune system, ecosystems… secret of antifragility is to allow failures, so that collective synchronous failure is impossible.

        no too big consensus to fail.

  • ecatworld

    Rossi on the FP Univ. of Utah press conference:

    March 25th, 2014 at 6:42 AM
    Giuliano Bettini:
    “25 years ago, press conference at University of Utah”…
    comment merits a more articulated answer than my former one. That
    conference has generated one positive consequence and one negative. The
    positive one is that it inspired and factually gave the start to the
    research in a new field of Physics. The negative one is that it
    originated a negative bias due to a lack of experimental work that made
    at least premature basic statements. As a matter of fact, the work of
    F&P has nothing to do with what we are doing today. Totally
    abandoned has been the electrolysis and the use of deuterium oxyde,
    totally different the source of the effect. At least, for what concerns
    my Team’s work.
    Warm Regards,

    • artefact

      This is no fire. We don’t use wood. We use oil which is something totally different.

      • Ed Storms position is that all what we observe in hydride as Cold Fusion, LENR, LENR+ is based on the same basic principle, but in various conditions, with various reactant, with various way to create and control NAE…

        His theory (hydroton) is just another among the many, but his vision that it is one phenomenon (NiH,NiD,PdD,TiD,WD…), aneutronic, with no numerous energetic gamma produced, localized in rare isolated structure inside the lattice (NAE), is really a good start.

        Beside that I disagree with the statement up there.

        F&P did a good job in calorimetry and it simply did not convince incompetent people (right their paper was too hasty, their neutron measurement flawed, but their calorimetry was perfect).

        The method was however too impractical for industrial use, and too practical for lab scientists to abandon it…

        For 20 years scientist mostly produced new evidence that were ignored, like tobacco industry ignored toxicity of it’s product (groupthink). Few paved the way to LENR+ (Fralick, Miley,Piantelli), but evidence were weaker.

        Finally some garage inventors accepted the evidence, tested new ideas in context were evidence were harder but usability better, they made it work for their eyes only. today E-cat is less proven than F&P which is unchallenged.

        Saying that Fleischmann calorimetry was bad is a fairy tale.

        IT IS UNCHALLENGED… (Like McKubre, Miles, Oriani).

        sure that if there was an error it would be found and spotted… the only recent critic is CCS of Shanahan, and it is not convincing (even the journals refused to publish it)… the rebuttal is based mostly on spotting that it would apply to other blank experiment, and that some protocols are immune, but CCS itself is not seriously studied by skeptics. I suspect CCS would deserve to be properly refuted, but skeptics don’t even touch it not to let the doubt disappear.


    • Andreas Moraitis

      „[…] totally different the source of the effect.”

      That’s a striking statement! If these anomalous heat effects are really based on different principles, we should not be surprised about the current lack of understanding. Symptoms which may be caused by multiple factors will seldom lead straight away to the correct diagnosis.

      • bachcole

        I believe that this is a case of Rossi being so close to his own work that he is not looking at the big picture, and I forgive him for that.

      • JDM

        AR claims (in his patent) That Ni absorbs a proton, becomes Cu (unstable), then beta decay back to Ni of a different isotope. That is different than Hydrogen fusing to become deuterium, tritium, helium, no?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I think he has changed his opinion since then. He seems to consider the Ni > Cu reaction merely as a side effect. We will possibly be surprised when he reveals his theory.

    • georgehants

      Mr. Rossi has always, it seems, had a problem with acknowledging the great contribution of P&F.
      It of course only serves to bring down the respect one feels for him.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        He may have a point in that there are multiple effects possible, each one having it’s own explanation. Transmutation for example could be something totally different from the FP reaction. We may have stumbled onto a whole range of unknown effects. Rossi does strike me as a humble person, so I personally give him the benefit of the doubt in this instance.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          If I’m really honest though, the idea that all the different effects have one common underlying basic principle is more attractive to me, but you cannot exclude the possibility that we’re talking different phenomena here.

          • georgehants

            Which ever, the one certain thing is that only money and good honest Research in many areas will find the answers.
            Most of us on page are still asking Why establishment science is still ignoring this amazing breakthrough and Research by a few brave Rebels outside of main-line science.
            Last week a few of us donated $50 each to aid the Research, yesterday NASA announced a
            six million dollar grant for ideas on capturing asteroids.
            Which donations do we think is more important?

            NASA Asteroid Redirect Mission: $6 Million In Awards For New Ideas On Capturing Near-Earth Objectshttp://www.ibtimes.com/nasa-asteroid-redirect-mission-6-million-awards-new-ideas-capturing-near-earth-objects-1563050

        • georgehants

          Zeddicus, I agree and do not in any way wish to detract from the Wonderful work of Mr. Rossi, but I have noticed over the years that does not clearly acknowledge the important work of P&F.
          His latest first reply on his page is usual, in that he avoided the question and just replied we are all getting old, this was then later changed to a fair personal view, without any praise for P&F.

          So again, I hope I am wrong and would Love for Mr. Rossi to put up a recognition of their work and suffering at the hands of the establishment, media and individuals.