‘Discrete Breathers’ in LENR (New Paper)

Thanks to Andreas Moraitis for referencing a new paper published on Arxiv.org written by Vladimir Dubinko of the NSC Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology,in Ukraine.

The paper proposes a theoretical explanation for what is occurring in low energy nuclear reactions — and Dubinko introduces a term (new to me) of ‘discrete breathers’ (DBs) to describe ‘large amplitude anharmonic lattice vibrations’.

Dubinko summarizes his theory in the conclusion of the paper:

A new mechanism of LENR in solids is proposed, in which DBs play the role of a catalyzer via extreme dynamic closing of adjacent H/D atoms required for the tunneling through the Coulomb barrier. DBs have been shown to arise either via thermal activation at elevated temperatures or via knocking atoms out of equilibrium positions under non-equilibrium gas loading conditions, employed under radiolysis or plasma deposition methods.

The present mechanism explains all the salient LENR requirements: (i, ii) long initiation time and high loading of D within the Pd lattice as preconditioning needed to prepare small PdD crystals, in which DBs can be excited, and (iii, iv) the triggering by D flux or electric current, which facilitates the DB creation by the input energy transformed into the lattice vibrations.

It’s good to see a new paper on LENR find its way into Arxiv.org. Personally I don’t feel at all qualified to comment on the value of this theory — but interestingly Andrea Rossi (who I certainly feel is qualified) made a comment about it today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics. Andreas posted a link to the article there, and Rossi commented:

Andreas Moraitis:
The physics of the so called breathers are very interesting. Good paper, thank you for citing it to our Readers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    you have some real point but the interpretation is always the proble, and the bias too.

    yes there is negative results… quick job by people who desire not to find don’t succeed… as you say it is not reliable… and this is confirmed by recent ENEA finding on the role of metalurgy.

    But strangely they find no explanations, beside some conspiracy theory and some genuine artifact that sometime can explain mild results, like Olga paper.

    you refuse to admit the community can block, by defunding, by blocking peer-review… you are blind to those evidence.

    Roland Beanbou call tha asymetric update. You can see one bad negative paper and miss a hundred good positive…

    history of HTSc have been rewritten because it was found much before the official date, because it could not be published out of footnote

    http://www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org/pdf/m18_03_87_04.pdf

    Schechtman, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman-nobel-prize-chemistry-interview

    like Watson & Creek who moanded about harsh opposition too…

    of course like in your memory all is rewritten, cleaned…

    you don’t imagine that physicist can refuse to investigate something interesting ? you just don’t know real science history.

    http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

    even Nobel today start to mona about conformism and peer pressure.

    are you able to recognize anything positive in LENr results, among the mass of positive result…

    you refuse to admit that something elusive well mesured is real. not all on earth is mastered… transistors were like F&P cells at the beginning… sometime working like clock. sometime dead, sometime sensible to ununderstood details.

    about tritium you refuse to understand we agree on the fact that it is much below hot fusion expected values… like says edmund Storms.
    He does not admit it, he revendicate it like me. Cold fusion does not produce neutrons or tritium above a tiny level, like hydrogen combustion produce no smoke…

    no you are blind.

    how to sort the myth from the real error you spot, I don’t know. that is the problem of critics by dead clock.
    sometime the time is good, but you never know when.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    I agree that there was great enthusiams at the beginning, but also that some influential physicist organization were furious that their theory was challenged by chemist.

    Thus enthusiasm also, like I see from many skeptics and supporters, led to imagining the replication was easy, like replicating a cake. It tooks years to replicated.

    Meanwhile the fierce opposition between dreamers and status quo defenders led to a clarcut victory of the defenders of status quo, and many desertion by dreamers.

    It si clear that as much as some exagerate on the conspiracy, ans as i see about very real affair like quasicristals, you deform reality not to see the huge opposition , the huge manipulations, the peer-review corruption, the academic terrors that was installed when statu quo defended took over the dreamers (while the chemist were simply working slowly, too late to participate).

    I would accept to consider you position more seriously if you were not clearly denying the reality of that terror.

    Maybe there is exaggeration, but it was the answer to a terrible situation. Mallove did not self-ignite. He have seen people tweak the results.

    More seriously than the tweaking, the proven incompetence of that experiment was the problem. They had a calorimetry 100 times less precises and they pretended to propose a negatibve result…

    Not seeing an elephant with sunglasses in a cave, is not an evidence there is no elephant.

    With cold fusion evidence we don’t talk of a small lab with 3 believers, but with hundred of scientists who replicated in different way, and who currently cross replicate regularly.

    I thing that you are locked in a groupthink, unable even to see the evidences. You claim we are the deluded guys, and party probably you make some points… but catching our mouse you miss your elephant.

    Also you interpret in a funny way, assuming you are right to prove you are right…

    for Rubbia, you don’t take into account the problem that report 41 made to him. He works on thorium because he need a work.

    Makybe he simply imagined that pushing a good report with his name was enough, and he observed that 41 scientific journal refused DeNinno paper without reading at all, or with fallacious excuse proving that not the least chemist or honest physicist had read it.

    that is what you cannot admit, and make you imagine a general conspiracy, while the fact is simply a classic groupthink as it happen continuously.

    Or course nobody is perfect, but you simply deny the power of mainstream academic terror.

    About Morrison it seems you vision of that guy is more than biased. Maintaining his theory of dissolved gases while he was out of more tha 1000x is not honorable. Maybe he jumped from fanatic supporter to fannatic denier… maybe he was simply desperate for honors… dinno but when you are wrong, you stop spreading lies.

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

    except if you know that whatever you do people will support you.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    the panel was a political circus to close the story.

    Seaborg have advised Bush Sr to make a panel to close the story.

    The conclusion was asking for research but blocked budget, and this was interpreted by physicist as “forbidden to research”.

    see the story of that panel

    http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/MalloveIE55.pdf

    and

    http://www2.lbl.gov/LBL-PID/Nobelists/Seaborg/presidents/23.html

    note for 2004 the role of the lenr scientist who like too many people focussed more on their pet theory, than on experiments. and probably the panelist did the same, claiming afterward that the evidence were weak, as it is done in politic panel.

    Charles Beaudette, like Abd Ul Rahman Lomax are not tender agains LENR scientists who make huge communication mistakes, and did not organize a coherent communications.
    But that is not a reason to tolerate Spanish Inquisition, of Stalinian Trial methods in mainstream science.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    by the way you rais an interresting problem.
    the blockus agains cold fusion papers succeeded in allowing better result to be peer reviewed, and allow you not to take recent and better results…

    good job for the censor. and don’t say me that they are blocked because bad … we have a brain here.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    You say there was no grudge agains cold fusion…

    It is true tha many people wer interested, but whod does people applauded the claim of pathological at APC conference feww weeks after the announce ?

    Maybe there is exaggeration, but what is described show clearly a terrible opposition, after a short enthusiastic (maybe did they think it was easy) period.

    Maybe also is ther the opposition of the leaders , despite the lower scientists enthusiasm… and lower scientist follow their funder, their boss.

    about Nobel, there are Nobel and distinguished scientist who supported cold fusion…

    many facts that Jed cite are documented, so visibly you reinterpret, you rationalize the real history.

    Mallove , an insider who get furious of how MIT physics labs were behaving, describe well the real ambiance…

    http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1991/eirv18n37-19910927/eirv18n37-19910927_052-clearing_the_air_about_the_cold.pdf

    “The saga of cold fusion at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where Dr. Mallove was chief science writer for the past five years, is a case study of how science should not work. Mallove resigned from MIT in June, be­cause he felt that he could no longer represent the university, given its “tragic and indefensible abrogation of academic standards” on the issue of cold fusion

    Mallove’s 17 -page resignation .letter catalogues MIT’s brutal and dishonest response to cold fusion. Among the incidents he reports is that a review article he prepared for MIT’s magazine Technology Review was dropped, after be­ing scheduled as a cover story, because an MIT senior physi­cist found it too positive. The same physicist told Mallove that he had “50 years of experience” in nuclear physics and I know what’s possible and what’s qot …. I don’t want to see any more evidence! I think it’s a bunch of junk and I don’t want to have anything further to do With it.”

    Mallove comments, “I’m profoundly embarrassed that we have such closed-mindedness here on scientific issues.”

    Another incident Mallove relates concerns disparaging statements about Pons and Fleischmann (“possible fraud,” and “scientific schlock”) by MIT’ � Ronald Parker in May 1989 and printed in the Boston Her-ald. Parker claimed he did not say those things, and Mallove issued an MIT press release with Parker’s denial. Then aiyear later Mallove heard a tape recording where Parker indepd said what the Boston Herald writer had reported-and more.

    Fudged data at MIT?

    The most egregious incident involves the MIT Plasma Fusion Center’s own cold fusion exIleriments in 1989, which were reported as negative at the time and used to make the case that Fleischmann and Pons’s ¢xperiment could not be replicated. The actual data from the experiment as published by MIT show nothing of interest in the heavy water and light water cells. However, the processfed but unaveraged data presented in an unpublished graph dated three days prior to the published version indicates that there was some excess power in the heavy water cell.”

    this man was simply the editor, not an activist until he face the horrific behavior of his peers.

    you can challenge some experiments as not conclusive, but please don’t say the domain is without evidence nor interest that at least justify some clearing.

    there is maybe not enough evidence to be absolutely sure of what is published around LENR, but there is much enough to justify more research.

    This lack of measure in critics, like my sometime immoderate enthusiasm, is not increasing your credibility.

    You seems rational on some precise subject, but i see you defend what you cannot defend sincerely. Please admit this domain is pathologically blacklisted and harassed by mainstream community, despite clear evidence calling for more research.

    The lack of honest critic out of the domain is not helping, and we will real honest critics, and not denialist.

    One of the best I know is Abd-Ul Rahman Lomax who is not tender against questionable results.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    about He4 if the critics are focused on it, i concede that He4, and especially the proportionality value are far to be so strongly validated as heat.

    Heat clearly today is proved above chemical possibilities, letting only possibilities to be nuclear or eve more weird.

    on He4 anyway the qualitative result replicated 3 times is quite solid, and the ideas that the result of Miles may be wrong are visibly about the correlation factor, bot the yes/no tha Report41 confirmed, like McKubre…

    About tritium you set well the debate but I maintain my position.

    Our disagreement is the key to the cold fusion saga.

    Most scientist don’t even understand than when asking for known ashed and commensurate quantities, they make invisible assumption.

    Tritium, like neutron, is JUDGEd as not COMMENSURATE to HEAT, according to HT FUSION branch ratio. if you admit that the fusion is D+D->He4 without neutron, not tritium, then there is no reason to have tritium.

    Simply in free space the branching ratio ask for mor tritium than He4.

    The tritium was measured at modest quantities in some experiments, but this is a very well mastered measurement (edmund Storms started by that, and moved to calorimetry, opposite to McKubre).

    NB: you should read The Science of LENR by Ed Storms (review http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/reviews/reviews_21_4_britz.pdf, buy it borrow it or ask to the russian mafia )

    He proposed that article at the tritium panel in ICCF18

    https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36822/SuccessMakingTritiumPresentation.pdf?sequence=1

    you will see that most critics are myth, or cherrypicking.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    “At some stage, it is not enough to continue to pull one’s hair out analyzing decades old results that fail to convince anyone who matters.”

    it is only you and the people who read nothing who are not convinced.

    “You can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue on one hand that there are a lot of refereed papers so cold fusion must be real.”

    you cannot either …

    what is your position ?

    We don’t need peer review by physicist as they are incompetent as you should have observed. Peer review py people expert in calorimetry who know those experiments are positive.

    The problem is not peer review is tha the peer reviewed who accept cold fusion are not respected by the incompetent consensus.

    Anyway I agree that refering to the 153 peer reviewed papers according toe mainstream criteria void your arguments…

    there is much more reason to void you argument, but even in your framework, your argument are void.

    DoE opinion, based on an incompetent cas of physicist who know few on calorimetry and have huge administrative bias, is no more interesting than Nature or Science corrupted opinion,who acnnot even correst their mistakes

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf
    (once again you refuse to read)

    more that refereed papers, of vested interest opinion of billions funded lobby, the total absence of maintained critic paper against F&P calorimetry, the massive replication, talk for itself.

    The fact is that factually there is no serious argument that can be written and face peer-review by the community (not the pal review in the editors cabinet).

    all you have to oppose is you self-asserted opinion that the paper are bad, that there is no opinion, which are based on nothing, following the usual structure of anti-lenr critics, assuming that they don’t need argument because … because what in fact ?

    If there was the least argument agains cold fusion experiments, it would be public and there would be no answer to it, or at least the claims would be maintained…

    Lewis , hansens, Morrison, Wilson critics are abandonned because they don’t respect basic calorimetry, or for Wilson basic honesty…

    DoE opinion is a political consensus and they have no critics beside anecdotical, carefully avoiding the solid evidences, and in a way conceding some reality.

    All of that is group psychiatry, not science.
    I agree that peer review by incompetent consensus reviewer mean nothing, even when positive, it is just proving that the critic are not coherent with their own arguments.
    They say “peer review” and when it is don they say… no .. no… one minute please Mr the executor…

    It is funny to see people moan on blackbox test, of E-cat moaning it is not science, and at the same time using DoE panel opinion which is politics and business.

    You are right that there is incoherent argumentation, simply we answer to the critics incoherent try to spot their irrationality and double standard, by using their claimed methods, Scientific Method.

    and please, try to get informed. it is exhausting to answer to answer to someone so uninformed.

    • kemosabe

      kemosabe>> “At some stage, it is not enough to continue to pull one’s hair out analyzing decades old results that fail to convince anyone who matters.”

      alainco> it is only you and the people who read nothing who are not convinced.

      You are wrong. Two DOE panels and countless peer reviewers are not convinced. Nearly everyone who matters is unconvinced. Only a few fringe scientists, and a bunch of deluded non-scientists like you are convinced. The level of scientist still in the field is dropping steadily.

      alainco> Peer review py people expert in calorimetry who know those experiments are positive.

      I don’t believe it. The J of Electroanalytical Chemistry, which published many of the cold fusion papers in the 90s, stopped publishing cold fusion papers around the year 2000.

      alainco> DoE opinion, based on an incompetent cas of physicist who know few on calorimetry and have huge administrative bias,

      You can argue that hot fusion researchers have a bias against cold fusion (though I disagree with that too), but the only bias the DOE could have would be in favor of cold fusion, because of the political, economic, environmental, and strategic benefits, if it were real. Hot fusion scientists get money for their research, but the DOE has to pay it. They would love to be able to *save* that money if cold fusion were real. This bias is all in your imagination, and its folly was proved in 1989.

      alainco> is no more interesting than Nature or Science corrupted opinion,

      Sure everyone is corrupt, except cold fusion believers, and they are infallible. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

      alainco> more that refereed papers, of vested interest opinion of billions funded lobby,

      Again, the people who stand to *save* billions if cold fusion is real, are the ones who formally reject cold fusion.

      If this sort of conspiracy theory had any validity, then there would have been similar conspiracies against fission and hot fusion by the oil companies, or against wind and solar by nuclear and oil. But there isn’t. It’s just irrational paranoia. It’s the evidence, stupid. It’s only because the evidence is so weak, that you spend all your time arguing about psychobabble and conspiracies. An energy density a million times that of dynamite is not something that can be suppressed by vested interests.

      alainco> all you have to oppose is you self-asserted opinion that the paper are bad,

      The papers are bad, because the evidence is weak, and the claims can’t be reproduced. What cold fusion people call reproducibility, real scientists call failure to reproduce. The results are all over the map, never the same twice, always marginal (in a dozen different ways), and they get worse as the experiment improves. Just before the effect vanishes, they change the experiment completely. Garwin calls it the “quit while you are ahead” tactic of cold fusion research. That’s why they quit tritium research and He4 research and the electrolysis experiments and so on.

      alainco> DoE opinion is a political consensus

      Cold fusion has only political benefits. Why would they reject something real that would bring them only benefits? You are trying irrationally to support an unsupportable position.

      alainco> It is funny to see people moan on blackbox test, of E-cat moaning it is not science,

      It isn’t science, and it is supporting a likely scam. If no one else has access to the black box, and the experiment is behind closed doors, they can make any claim they want. How is that science?

      alainco> and at the same time using DoE panel opinion which is politics and business.

      The DOE panel consisted of scientists. If it were politics and business, the bias would be in cold fusion’s favor. And the DOE panel is merely cited to represent scientific opinion. Scientists themselves, are virtually unanimous in rejecting cold fusion based on the lack of convincing evidence. It is not more complicated than that.

      alainco> and please, try to get informed. it is exhausting to answer to answer to someone so uninformed.

      If by “informed”, you mean read non-scientist’s accounts of how mean the DOE is, no thanks. I’ve read the literature, and the evidence does not support the claims.

    • kemosabe

      kemosabe> “You can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue on one hand that there are a lot of refereed papers so cold fusion must be real. And then say, there are not enough peer reviewed papers so the peer review system is corrupt.”

      alainco> you cannot either …

      I’m not trying to. Peer review is a minimum standard for credible science, but it is obviously not enough, since a great deal of nonsense survives peer review. The point is that the heat-He4 correlation, after Miles, cannot even pass this minimum standard.

  • Zephir

    It’s always good to see a new paper on LENR find its way into mainstream physics repository, but from reactions of posters it’s evident, this article doesn’t provide very much new for most of people here. Most of readers already feel that the Mossbauer mode of lattice vibrations may contribute to cold fusion yield. I’d welcome some experimental confirmation of this model instead.

  • Omega Z

    If you get unexplained results that don’t fit theory, It’s a scientists job to find out why. If you believe it is error, Prove it. Don’t just discard it as error. This is pseudoscience.

    When something doesn’t fit the model, Does not make it is wrong. It may mean you’ve stumbled upon a new process. It’s the job of Scientists to explore & understand. If there is nothing new to be learned in a specific realm, then maybe we no longer need scientists in that field. Cut the Funding.

    • kemosabe

      Omega Z> If you get unexplained results that don’t fit theory, It’s a scientists job to find out why. If you believe it is error, Prove it. Don’t just discard it as error. This is pseudoscience.

      If that were true, scientists would spend all their time finding out why some people think perpetual motion machines work, why others think bigfoot exists, and why others think remote viewing is real, and so on. Scientists are free to judge evidence as they see fit, based on their expertise and experience, and to use their time to investigate whatever they find interesting or promising. They don’t need instruction from you.

      If someone claims evidence for a new phenomenon, the onus is on them to make the results convincing. P&F attracted a lot of attention with their claims. And because of their distinguished backgrounds, many many people went to the lab to test the claims. They didn’t stand up, and now, people are more wary of cold fusion claims. The evidence is going to have to get better for it to be considered seriously again, but instead, it has only gotten weaker.

      Omega Z> When something doesn’t fit the model, Does not make it is wrong.

      Obviously. But when it is so contrary to expectations, is wildly erratic in nature, is achieved by only a minority of those who attempt the experiment, so that artifact or error is many times more plausible, then most scientists will regard their time better spent investigating something with real promise. It has always been thus.

      Omega Z> It may mean you’ve stumbled upon a new process.

      It may, and that’s certainly what thousands of scientists thought in 1989. They went to the lab and then concluded that they had stumbled on the “incompetence and delusion” of P&F.

      Omega Z> It’s the job of Scientists to explore & understand.

      Sure, but have the subject of their investigation dictated by commenters in an obscure blog.

      Omega Z> If there is nothing new to be learned in a specific realm, then maybe we no longer need scientists in that field. Cut the Funding.

      I believe that’s the attitude both DOE panels took toward cold fusion, when they recommended against special funding for the field.

      In the meantime, a great deal of effort and funding has gone into the continued study of subatomic physics, which has resulted in the discovery and mass measurement of the Higgs boson, and around a half dozen Nobel prizes have been awarded in the field (since 1989). Nobel prizes in physics are awarded for “the most important discovery or invention” in the field. In other words: new knowledge.

      Rejection of cold fusion is not because scientists think they already know everything, but because it is contrary to highly robust generalizations in which they have high confidence, and because of the weakness in the evidence. It’s exactly the same reasoning they use in rejecting perpetual motion claims. Scientists have to rely on their judgment and experience in interpreting claims, and the very best, most celebrated scientists, like Gell Mann and Lederman and Weinberg and Glashow, who have been celebrated for discovering *new* knowledge, have judged that cold fusion research lacks merit.

      Scientists become scientists because they love and embrace change, and love to challenge the current world view. That’s why awards in science, selected *by* scientists, are given to scientists who discover *new* things, not those who fear them; they are given to scientists who bring about change, not those who prevent it. The most famous and honored scientists are those who brought revolutions in thought and practice. So, when scientists reject something like cold fusion, it is not because they fear new ideas; it’s because they’re nearly certain the idea has no merit.

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        “It may, and that’s certainly what thousands of scientists thought in 1989. They went to the lab and then concluded that they had stumbled on the “incompetence and delusion” of P&F.”

        it is a myth, critics were remote and the visit was not to see the lab work.

        Lewis visited McKubre with garwin and said nothing.

        Beaudette (that you should read, to be informed) describe it so

        http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=359

        “When Goodstein learned, inadvertently, about the solid scientific work going on in cold fusion research his response was not unique. Earlier, I mentioned the three experienced electrochemists who visited the McKubre laboratory at SRI, Menlo Park, California, during the years 1990 through 1994.

        They were A. Bard, (University of Texas, Austin, Texas), H. Birnbaum, (University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois), Richard Garwin, (IBM, White Plains, New York), and N. S. Lewis, (Caltech). Each spent several days examining McKubre’s laboratory practice in detail.2 They found no procedural error with the measuring technique or data reduction techniques used to evaluate the operating performance of the cold fusion type cells. They had no contractual obligations either to reveal or to keep the things they learned confidential. Nevertheless, they chose to say nothing to the scientific community.

        Dr. John O’M. Bockris, distinguished professor of chemistry at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, ran cold fusion cells during the summer and fall of 1989. He reported excess heat and tritium, but the results were sporadic. At last, he came to a point where he had a cell that ran continuously for three weeks. It was time to call in some of his critical colleagues in the department who knew what he was attempting to do, so they could witness his results. The first one to be invited explained that he was busy moving from one house to another and could not spare the time. The second explained that he was simply too immersed in an examination schedule to break away, and the third just happened to be leaving on a trip shortly, so sorry. This inference of fear was a continuing pattern.

        Dr. Huizenga visited the cold fusion laboratory at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, on February 28, 1997. At this time, he was retired. He was visiting at the invitation of the physics department to speak against the cold fusion heresy that was alive in their department.

        Drs. Robert Bush and Robert Eagleton, full professors in the department of physics, were running light water cells. Bush was Huizenga’s host in the laboratory.

        In Bush’s words, one cell was, “. . . evidencing excess power. And, while the gain (Pout/Pin) was rather modest at that time (about 1.12), the excess power was well outside the possible error bars . . .”3 Huizenga was invited to spend time taking data. Huizenga demurred. Bush invited him to return on another date and do so. Huizenga demurred. Bush then offered him a fellowship to cover the expense of a return visit. Huizenga demurred. He refused all offers to participate in the experimental work in accordance with the manner of Drs. R. W. Wood and Irving Langmuir in the cases of Blondlot and Barnes respectively.

        These illustrations of avoidance of the laboratory are representative of the intellectual climate ten years after the Utah announcement. If the reader feels that I have belabored my theme too long, let me say that, prior to his Italian visit, Goodstein represented the intelligent, knowledgeable, and cosmopolitan American physicist in his ignorance of cold fusion research after 1989, and in the audacity with which he has written and spoken about it without troubling to read up on the subject beforehand. What Goodstein learned was that, except for Petrasso’s well founded criticism of Fleischmann and Pons’s nuclear measurements, Baltimore was bogus. Cold fusion research was not a pathological science. The assault of Koonin and Lewis was mistaken: Fleischmann and Pons were not incompetent and delusional. Indeed, evidence of a new means of generating energy had been found in the flow of anomalous heat power that defied contemporary science.

        you should really read the real story and avoid the lies of Wikipravda.

        the skeptics were basically avoiding evidence, avoiding experiments, sticking to theoretical arguments and guesses that they never checked, refusing refutation evidence, and for the rare who were visiting, hiding the evidence they did not found.

        they were moaning about “negative results” but they were the first not to show their “negative results”….

        double standard as I say.

  • Warthog

    Ah, yes….”peer review”, “peer review”, “peer review”. The standard mantra of the skeptic. The only problem is that it is virtually impossible to get a CF paper even INTO the peer review process, much less through it.

    I’ve read the actual papers reporting the results, and I disgree with your “findings” (note….I am WELL qualified to be a “peer reviewer” of the experiments (PhD Analytical Chemistry)), and the experiments (other than running the CF cells), are standard chemical analysis hardware and methodologies. The experiments were, for the most part, very well done, accounting for possible sources of error (as from atmospheric He contamination and/or insufficient mass spec resolution). And “I” find them to be conclusive as to proving that for the Pd/D2 system, the the overall reaction is 4H2 —> 2He4.

    Not so for the Ni/H2 system. For that, the results are pretty much non-existent.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    about kW less precise than mW is is just calorimetry, and quite classic in science… but LENR critics often ignore more or less voluntarily the basic of calorimetry and science when it push their idea

    report 41 was rejected without reading (no room) of for arguments that proven the incompetence of the journal :

    http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchieste/documenti/letteraSCIENCE001.pdf

    the bias of peer review is so high that they even refuse to correct errors in peer-reviewed papers when they pretend to be negative

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf

    the story of the rejections of report41 is very instructive of the level of dishonesty in peer review today

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum/showthread.php?404-Report-41-DeNinno-by-ENEA-and-rejection

    “In the summer of 2002 the report 41 was sent to several scientific journals. The first two were the American Science and Nature, those who “have a higher impact factor”, as they say. In the sense that a publication on these magazines “that is” much more to the scientific career of a researcher. “Within a few days-remember Antonella De Ninno-a tight turn, Science e-mail replied that they did not have space to publish this work. Have not entered into, we were not even allowed to have access to the review process, which is usually used in the scientific world, so a job is sent to other members who shall assess the reliability and, where appropriate, ask for clarification. In this case we were expelled immediately. We were told that there was no space, editorial reasons “.
    “This was the answer of Science,” said Emilio Del Giudice.
    “Others made comments rather peregrine. For example one says: ‘ As you can reach temperatures so high underwater, water electrolytic cell? ‘ Apparently this gentleman didn’t know that there are submarine volcanoes, or that it is possible to make the seams underwater if there is a sufficient source of power … ”
    Antonella De Ninno, “after Nature we tried with four other magazines, but I have to say that we couldn’t have a formal review process, in particular on the extent of the helium we haven’t picked up a single objection in five magazines”.”

    for report41

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf

    about erratic measurement, I would say that this excuse is fallacious… not all is clear in science, at early state.

    It was replicated and much above the uncertainty.

    for Miles/Bush

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesMcorrelatioa.pdf

    but maybe there is more recent version.

    Read who are morrison, what they claim

    you seems clearly not to have read much on that subject.

    just what is said on Morrisson incompetence and dishonesty should warn someone who pretend to be skeptic and cautious on scientific question

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

    read what was their claims and errors.

    the basic of denial of lenr is to be gullible on some claims, and denying the rest.

    Taubes and Morrisson are incompetent. They make huge errors that any skeptic would treat with ridicule.
    Hansen and Lewis just proved their incompetent in calorimetry and their huge bias.
    Huizenga is an insult to the scientific method, like is Pomp.
    It is factual as the prefer their conspiracy theory to analyzing scientific data, and rationalize their rejection of any experimental result.

    Your paragraph on scientist having a pile of knowledge in which they believe is interesting.
    the only thing is that physicist have a corpus of knowledge that was conflicting with calorimetry and thermodynamic corpus of knowledge.

    their pathology have been to imagine that they could not be wrong, thus that chemist were wrong.
    it is nothing more than huge ego, and disdain for chemist competence.

    never forget that if cold fusion is extraordinary for a physicist, the crazy claims of physicists, of Huizenga&al are even more extraordinary in chemistry and thermodynamic…

    even if LENR is never seen, nuclear physics is a new science, and is challenged every decade by material science.
    Challenging calorimetry just because you don’t want to admit that once against material science is causing havoc in quantum physics, is huge Hubris, if not vested interest.

    • kemosabe

      alainco> about kW less precise than mW is is just calorimetry, and quite classic in science…

      No doubt absolute random uncertainty is smaller for mW calorimetry, but artifacts in calorimetry at the mW level are common. No one believes that a kW excess heat claim cannot be made more credible than a mW claim. I don’t think you believe that yourself.

      alainco> report 41 was rejected without reading (no room) of for arguments that proven the incompetence of the journal

      Lots of cold fusion papers have been published in refereed journals. But report 41 couldn’t. It must be worse than all the others. The authors report calorimetry results and suggest they are wrong by a factor of ten because of poor methodology. The theoretical speculation is naive and embarrassing. Maybe if they had removed those things, they could have published the helium claims.

      Rubbia has shown some sympathy for cold fusion claims, and was involved/consulted/instigated the experiments that led to report 41. In spite of its failure to survive peer review, report 41 is accessible to all, including Rubbia. Since then, Rubbia has been involved in other alternative energy projects, particularly sub-critical thorium reactors. Evidently one of the experiments instigators was not convinced by the results.

      Heat/helium claims remain controversial, and the claims could not convince the DOE panel in 2004 (after report 41), and yet no one has reported even attempting the experiments in a decade or more. It seems even cold fusion advocates don’t believe them or are afraid of negative results.

      alainco> Morrisson incompetence and dishonesty

      Morrison said this in the weeks after the P&F press conference:

      “… I feel this subject will become so important to society that we must consider the broader implications as well as the scientific ones. Looking into a cloudy crystal ball, […] the present big power companies will be running down their oil and coal power stations while they are building deuterium separation plants and new power plants based on cold fusion. No new nuclear power stations will be built except for military needs….”

      He was fully prepared to accept the claims of P&F. It was only when the evidence did not stand up to scrutiny that he became skeptical.

      alainco> Taubes and Morrisson are incompetent. … Hansen and Lewis just proved their incompetent in calorimetry and their huge bias.

      Huizenga is an insult to the scientific method, like is Pomp.

      You can stomp your feet and repeat these insults until you are blue in the face, and it may be some comfort to cold fusion advocates, but I already told you that it has no persuasive effect on skeptics. They simply don’t accept your judgement. They’ve seen the evidence, and it doesn’t stand up. You have demonstrated your poor judgment with DGT, your advocacy of Rossi, and your idea that the shabby work represented by report 41 deserves publication.

      alainco> nuclear physics is a new science, and is challenged every decade by material science.

      Nuclear physics is a century old, and is far from complete, but I’d need to see some examples of challenges from material science. Material science is physics too, and very few materials physicists think cold fusion research has any merit.

      > vested interest.

      The reality of cold fusion is in almost everyone’s interest, which is why it was accepted with almost unbridled enthusiasm in 1989. It is why P&F were treated like stars and cheered at normally sedate scientific meetings. It is when the claims did not stand up to scrutiny according to nearly all respected scientists, that the wheels fell off the cart. Look at the quality of the people still supporting it. When you consider the fame, glory, wealth, and Nobel prizes at stake if it were real, such virtually unanimous rejection is only consistent with virtual certainty that the effect is illusory.

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        about the relative precision of calorimetry,

        if you read

        http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miles-Examples-of-Isoperibolic-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf

        you will see that a good calorimeter like the one of F&P can achive a precision of 0.1mW over about 0.25W-1W (with anomalies up to 150%)

        of course if the experiment is done by physicist like at MIT, 10mW is the precision, which is much less precise but anyway 4%, is .

        for kW of power, with much less control reaching 1% of precision is very hard, because it is just the electric instrument precision, and that plumbing or IR cam add even more errors.

        for Report41 if you had read my link you will know that the paper was not read seriously, so it’s quality is not in the balance.

        Nature rejected it because “no room”, others because they were simply finding bad excuses.

        if you want to understand why the cold fusion saga turned into a fiasco of epistemology and academic groupthink, you really have to read the book of Beaudette (the errors of communications of F&P, the incompetence of physicist in calorimetry, theyr focus on theory and theory requirement like hot fusion ashes)..

        about how the myth that you repeat are parroted, you shoudl read the Titanic article of Jed that I linked, where you will see how taubes and Morrison were incompetent, factually incompetent and unethically biased.

        I don’t give the links, since those we are ready to read them, have read them, and the others will parrot the same errors like Huizenga did.

        you seems victim of disinformation, probably reading the books of morrison, taubes, parks and huizenga, or the parrots who read them, or wikipedia who parrot the books and refuse to integrate any recent data, or consider anything not inline with their groupthink.

        if the results were so bad, why did another of the top electrochemist of the period, Heinz Gerischer, and ex-skeptic, did admit in 1992 that there was clear evidences.

        http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf#page=2

        and if there is clear evidence and that consensus, and high impact journals, and Wikipedia and academic societies, refuse to admit it, this mean that there is something rotten.

        this clear conclusion is what in fact lock the groupthink, because admitting Cold fusion works, mean that academic have committed a crime against science.

        if you were so right against LENR paper, why is there no published or just written critics on the calorimetry that was not refuted to the point or dismissal, or that was a confirmation in fact ? why are those 4 paper not defended anymore ?
        why is there no critic by a chemist, competent in calorimetry ? because any chemist having studied the evidence concluded it was sound, and that saying that will make him lose his job… except if like Gerischer you were the boss.

        if the He4 paper of Miles/Bush was so weak, why was the only reader of it in 2004 DoE panel supportive ? and why did the other not even criticize it based on it’s content ?

        because the denial of cold fusion evidence is based on not reading them, and parroting old claims supported by the group and no evidence.

        • kemosabe

          alainco> you will see that a good calorimeter like the one of F&P can achive a precision of 0.1mW over about 0.25W-1W (with anomalies up to 150%) [...]

          > for kW of power, with much less control reaching 1% of precision is very hard, because it is just the electric instrument precision, and that plumbing or IR cam add even more errors.

          But a 1 kW excess power claim with 50% error is (ordinarily) a more convincing demonstration of an excess heat phenomenon than a 1 mW claim with 1% error, because artifacts and systematic errors at the mW level are far more difficult to exclude. Precision says nothing about systematic error.

          I added “(ordinarily)” because if you are determined like Rossi, it is possible to produce systematic errors in the range of 700% by claiming dry steam when it is very wet, or in the range of a few hundred per cent by misplacing thermocouples, or gaming the input.

          alainco> for Report41 if you had read my link you will know that the paper was not read seriously, so it’s quality is not in the balance.

          > Nature rejected it because “no room”, others because they were simply finding bad excuses.

          What does “no room” mean? They have published things after report 41, which are longer. So, it can only mean they have no room for a paper like *that*, by which they probably mean a paper of such poor quality.

          And why are we talking about Nature? Probably less than 1% of submitted papers are published there.

          The fact remains that cold fusion papers were published before and after report 41 in refereed journals, so you can’t say it was rejected because it was cold fusion. Whatever excuses they may have made, I submit that no respectable journal is going to publish a paper that says we have done calorimetry, but you can’t trust it within a factor of 10. It was a lousy paper, and that’s the reason it was rejected by 41 journals, even while other cold fusion papers were being published.

          alainco> if you want to understand why the cold fusion saga turned into a fiasco of epistemology and academic groupthink,

          The only plausible groupthink is on the side of cold fusion advocates. Mainstream science is an extremely diverse and diffuse entity that actually encourages and rewards innovation and novelty and disruptive ideas supported by good evidence. But the True Believers in cold fusion are fairly tightly knit group that discourages dissent, and embraces cold fusion’s many inconsistencies. It’s the reason so many cold fusion advocates (though not all) accept such an obviously unlikely claim as Rossi’s with almost no scrutiny, and from someone with a history of fraud, but none in physics.

          alainco> about how the myth that you repeat are parroted, you shoudl read the Titanic article of Jed that I linked, where you will see how taubes and Morrison were incompetent, factually incompetent and unethically biased.

          Rothwell has not made a new point in a decade, and every one of his points has been deconstructed in various on-line forums repeatedly. I’m not interested in taubes, but Morrison is highly qualified, followed the field closely until his death, and remained a skeptic, in spite of his initial optimism for cold fusion.

          alainco> you seems victim of disinformation, probably reading the books of morrison, taubes, parks and huizenga,

          I’ve read the primary literature, and much of what cold fusion advocates have written on-line.

          alainco> refuse to integrate any recent data,

          This has been largely about heat/helium, and there is no recent data. It is you that defends 20 year old data.

          alainco> if the results were so bad, why did another of the top electrochemist of the period, Heinz Gerischer, and ex-skeptic, did admit in 1992 that there was clear evidences.

          Gerischer’s experience amounted to attending one conference, and he said “It demands confirmation and further experimental evaluation.” and “The overwhelming problem is the lack of reproducibility in the results.” He died shortly after this document, so we’ll never know how he would have regarded the field after 20 more years without improvement in the reproducibility.

          And next to Gerischer, we have two expert panels specifically enlisted to examine the evidence who were almost unanimous that it is *not* proved real. Huizenga studied the results in detail, and wrote a skeptical book about it. Garwin examined the field and remained skeptical. Morrison followed the field in excruciating detail until his death in ~2001, and remained firmly skeptical (and that’s after expressing some remarkable optimism in the very early days of cold fusion.) The vast majority of experts in nuclear physics think cold fusion is pathological science, and that includes a long list of Nobel laureates who have been honored for *new* ideas.

          Why do you choose to trust Gerischer’s optimism? He was a member of mainstream science, which you accuse of being unable to overcome groupthink. Do you subscribe to the believer’s motto: Mainstream scientists are corrupt and self-interested, unless they endorse cold fusion, in which case, they are infallible?

          With the self-exile of Pons, and the death of Fleischmann, there is very little intelligence left in the field. Just a bunch of washed up researchers (Storms, McKubre, Celani, Hagelstein…), a bunch of opportunistic con-men with no background in physics (Rossi, Dardik, Mills, Godes…), and a bunch of unqualified on-line cheer-leaders (Alainco, Rothwell, Lomax, Krivit, Carat …).

          alainco> because admitting Cold fusion works, mean that academic have committed a crime against science.

          This is so very wrong. I submit there is not a scientist drawing breath who would think that if cold fusion were real, it would not be proven beyond doubt, and they would have expected it soon after the 1989 claims. An effect like that cannot be suppressed simply by refusing to admit it is real. It represents an energy density a million times higher than dynamite, and manifested in a table top experiment at ordinary conditions. It would be like denying aviation after the getting buzzed by Orville Wright. Anyone who can imagine this is simply deluded beyond hope.

          Denying cold fusion in the face of what would be its inevitable vindication would be far worse than simply accepting it at the earliest possible stage. And so, the denial of scientists can only be because they are essentially certain it is bogus.

          Moreover, the events of 1989 prove that the scientific mainstream was not only open to the idea of cold fusion, but enthusiastically welcoming. You have a need to rationalize your deep delusion, and the only way is to imagine a worldwide conspiracy against something that would benefit everyone. It doesn’t wash.

          alainco> if you were so right against LENR paper, why is there no published or just written critics on the calorimetry

          For the same reason there are no published criticisms of perpetual motion. There is no significant audience for such papers. Nearly everyone who matters already dismisses cold fusion.

          The evidence for cold fusion was considered in detail and rejected a long time ago. To get attention again, you have to give up trashing criticisms — that’s not gonna work — and present evidence. And considering the old evidence was not enough, you have to show signs of progress, and sadly there are none. Quite the contrary, in fact. Rothwell has cited more than 150 peer-reviewed published claims of excess heat, some many tens of watts, but fewer than ten of those are in the last decade, and those in the range of a watt or less.

          > because any chemist having studied the evidence concluded it was sound, and that saying that will make him lose his job… except if like Gerischer you were the boss.

          Or any tenured academic job for that matter. Miley, Duncan, Hagelstein, Celani, etc did not lose their jobs. And anyway, if doing bad science makes you lose your job as a scientist, isn’t that appropriate? Could a creationist hold a job in the Harvard biology department? P&F were about to be canonized for discovering cold fusion, but then the world found out it didn’t work. Remember, the world (especially scientists) would love to have cold fusion, if only it were real. Cold fusion scientists are marginalized because the science is bad. It’s that simple.

          alainco> if the He4 paper of Miles/Bush was so weak, why was the only reader of it in 2004 DoE panel supportive ?

          The Hagelstein/McKubre review (given to the panel) has a major section on heat-helium which is kicked off with the Miles’ results. And one would think it much better than Miles’ paper, because it include results from subsequent experiments, which Abd said were much better than Miles’ *crude* results. So if they reject the better story, then the rejection of Miles is implicit.

          And while only one reviewer referred to Miles explicitly, many of them referred to helium-heat results in general terms that would include Miles results. One of them refers to electrolysis and glass containers, so that is probably Miles, and he still writes that evidence “cannot be considered conclusive”. The one who does refer to Miles explicitly concludes “The implication of this work, if correct, could be profound.” Well, even I agree with that. That “if correct” suggests he still has some doubts.

          The better question is, if the Miles results were so good, why did a panel of 18 not accept them, when cold fusion would represent a dramatic economic, ecological, and strategic benefit to the US government (represented by the DOE) and the people who elect it?

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    Bush measurement of Miles He4 was done in double blind, so the hypotheis of confirmation bias does not hold.

    Jones honesty is also to be challenged from his past behavior. You cannot take him as honest.

    Anyway the measurement were tricky.

    Maybe you can challenge the precision of the proportionality, but Report41 show a huge synchronicity with He4 and heat with modern tools.

    the claim of “background He4″ are some time real, but on some experiments they are fantasy as the quantity is much above background, even including some never observed fractionation.

    DoE panel in 2004 was a hasty job again, and the LENr scientists were more interesting in selling their pet theory than structuring experiments

    Abd Ul Rahman Lomax did study that report on He4

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum/showthread.php?1157-Abd-ul-rahman-Lomax-Did-the-2004-US-DoE-review-reject-cold-fusion

    he notice the usual irrational denial, instead of the scientific prudence we should expect.

    >>To sum up: An objective look at the heat/helium results does not provide even weak evidence for cold fusion. And given its extraordinary nature, that means it is almost certainly not happening.<<

    This is a classic pseudoskeptical argument. First the skeptic finds ways to weaken evidence, i.e., maybe some mistake was made, the peer-reviewers were drunk, the researchers are "believers" and deluded, they didn't report all their ambient helium measurements, whatever it takes.

    Then they assert that there is *no* evidence. Weak evidence, were it so, is not *no* evidence."

    the haste or the desire not to be aware is shown

    "Only one of the reviewers showed any sign of having looked at Miles, even though a Miles paper was included in the package (over 100 papers), and that reviewer, referring to Miles, was convinced that the effect was nuclear."

    as usual the main element for denial is careful ignorance of the facts.

    Some myth are also usefull for those who cannot undertand the papers themselves, making them believe that competent people deny the quality of the papers.

    note tha tritium is unavoidable even by the most dishonest scientist.
    No contamination is possible since it is not natural and short lived.

    some nuclear ash, even few, prove the physicis who deny LENr are wrong.
    now since they prove their total lack of honesty by not admitting those weird facts, you can look at the opinion of those who are honest.

    the 1tom gorilla in the kitchen is that it is a clear denial problem.
    there is a clear symptom, with 100% certainty despite respectable evidences.
    fighting evidence without anything conclusive (just doubts, and suspicions) and saying you are sure is just a symptom of "true-deniers".

    Maybe Bush/Miles have a less precise result than what they imagine, but ruling out their result despite their careful work is not serious.

    about Jones
    "As to Jones, he focused on theory, i.e., his position has obviously been that measurable heat from cold fusion is impossible, therefore there *must* be an artifact, so he imagines them right and left. He didn't touch the correlation, except in an extremely minor way, pointing out an obvious problem that
    represents a failure to fully specific the protocol in advance (which is highly desirable when measuring correlations, or cherry-picking the data is a ready charge.) That problem *at most* would have weakened the correlation a little. In Miles' later analyses, he included all data, including three outliers."

    • kemosabe

      alainco> Bush measurement of Miles He4 was done in double blind, so the hypotheis of confirmation bias does not hold.

      They claim the samples were coded. That’s not the same. Anyway, the results were wildly erratic, got less convincing when they switched to metal from glass, involved low (claimed) power, were challenged in refereed literature, and in 20 years have not been replicated in a peer reviewed journal. That’s the sort of thing that passes for evidence in cold fusion.

      alainco> Jones honesty is also to be challenged from his past behavior.

      Coming from a Rossi advocate, this is rich. Anyway, his critique, which does not depend on honesty, passed peer review. Peer review is used to legitimize Miles’ work, so at best, the competing papers show the results to be controversial, and in need of replication. No replication in 20 years has survived peer review.

      alainco> the claim of “background He4″ are some time real, but on some experiments they are fantasy as the quantity is much above background,

      Not in quantitative, peer-reviewed claims. And in physics labs with cryogenic pumping, ambient helium levels are often much above background. In any case, background could be exceeded by orders of magnitude in the metal, according to some claims of power excess. Helium is never reported in such cases.

      alainco> DoE panel in 2004 was a hasty job

      Eighteen experts were selected, half were given a month to review literature supplied by advocates, a day of presentations, and 18 written reports, is not hasty. If advocates can’t convince experts of credible results in that time, it’s probably because they’re not.

      >>To sum up: An objective look at the heat/helium results does not provide even weak evidence for cold fusion. And given its extraordinary nature, that means it is almost certainly not happening.< [...]Weak evidence, were it so, is not *no* evidence.”

      For extraordinary claims, evidence as weak as that for cold fusion (“not even weak”) is no better than no evidence. And the longer that evidence fails to get stronger, the weaker it is. The fact that we are arguing about a 20-year old experiment, shows that no one has been able to strengthen the case.

      alainco> “Only one of the reviewers showed any sign of having looked at Miles, even though a Miles paper was included in the package (over 100 papers), and that reviewer, referring to Miles, was convinced that the effect was nuclear.”

      You’re squirming here. The Hagelstein/McKubre review (given to the panel) has a major section on heat-helium which is kicked off with the Miles’ results. And one would think it much better than Miles’ paper, because it include results from subsequent experiments, which Abd said were much better than Miles’ *crude* results. So if they reject the better story, then the rejection of Miles is implicit.

      And while only one reviewer referred to Miles explicitly, many of them referred to helium-heat results in general terms that would include Miles results. One of them refers to electrolysis and glass containers, so that is probably Miles, and he still writes that evidence “cannot be considered conclusive”. The one who does refer to Miles concludes “The implication of this work, if correct, could be profound.” Well, even I agree with that. That “if correct” suggests he still has some doubts.

      alainco> note tha tritium is unavoidable even by the most dishonest scientist.

      Tritium is claimed to be detected at levels far below what is necessary to explain the claims of excess heat, and the levels vary by about 10 orders of magnitude.

      Its observation would of course have important scientific implications anyway, and since tritium and cold fusion are both nuclear, there might be some connection, so you would expect people to investigate it. Since it avoids the vagaries of and careful control and calibration necessary for calorimetry, and since tritium can be detected at reaction rates orders of magnitude below those necessary to produce measurable heat, the experiments should be vastly easier and more definitive. And one might expect that to be the main direction of research until at least the tritium question is understood. What factors affect it? How does it scale with the mass, shape, loading, and topology of the Pd, or with the electrolysis or gas-loading conditions, and so on.

      But in fact, as with heat (or neutrons), the situation is no clearer now than it was 20 years ago. There were a lot of searches for tritium in the early days, when people thought there might be conventional fusion reactions, and many people claimed to observe it.

      But as it became clear that the tritium could not account for the heat, and as the experiments became more careful, the tritium levels mostly decreased, as is characteristic of the absence of an effect. In 1998 McKubre wrote: “we may nevertheless state with some confidence that tritium is not a routinely produced product of the electrochemical loading of deuterium into palladium.”

      In the last decade, there has been very little activity on the tritium front, which again, fits the absence of an effect, and puts those early results — some already under suspicion — in serious doubt. To my mind, if they can’t resolve the tritium question in some kind of definitive and quantitative way, there is no hope for heat.

      The most credible organization that claimed tritium was LANL, but their latest paper on it seems to be in 1998, even though they certainly hadn’t answered any interesting questions about it, like what reaction produces it. Stopping the experiments without resolving anything, or even getting a decent publication out of it, suggests that either the experimenters themselves lost confidence, or LANL killed it. I found no signs of that research on their web site now. It does not improve the credibility of the tritium claims.

      alainco> No contamination is possible since it is not natural and short lived.

      It’s true that tritium can be detected at reaction rates orders of magnitude below those necessary to produce measurable heat, and surprise, surprise, that’s where they are detected. The levels from LANL are mostly at a fraction of a nCi with one in the range of a nCi, with sensitivity (they claim) of 0.1 nCi. Higher yes, but why always so close. And they spend a lot of time explaining why “the detected ionizing material is tritium rather than an artifact of the instrument or some other isotope”. That kind of kills the point of looking for tritium, which was supposed to be at unequivocal levels. But just like heat and neutrons and helium, it too appears at levels that are not far from the noise.

      alainco> fighting evidence without anything conclusive (just doubts, and suspicions)

      When someone claims pigs can fly, doubts and suspicions are enough. If they were right, unequivocal evidence would be easy, and so its absence is enough.

      The problem is that after 25 years, there is still not an experiment that anyone skilled in the art can do, and get quantitatively predictable positive results, whether it’s excess heat, tritium, or helium (or an unequivocally positive result).

      It’s why an executive director at the Office of Naval Research, who had funded experiments by Miles and others said (from a NewScientist article in 2003): “For close to two years, we tried to create one definitive experiment that produced a result in one lab that you could reproduce in another,” Saalfeld says. “We never could. What China Lake did, NRL couldn’t reproduce. What NRL did, San Diego couldn’t reproduce. We took very great care to do everything right. We tried and tried, but it never worked.”

      It’s why McKubre said in 2008 that there is no quantitive reproducibility nor inter-lab reproducibility.

      Even if the effect is small, if it is quantitatively reproducible, then it’s possible to use systematic experiments to scale it up like Curie did, or Lavoisier did, and then it becomes credible.

      But again, a single really prominent effect (especially from an isolated device) would suffice if it were reliable enough so that it can be widely demonstrated, or so that anyone can follow a prescription and with suitable enough devices see the it in a reasonable amount of time.

      But cold fusion has neither a reliable indisputable demonstration (at any statistical level), nor a more subtle, but statistically reproducible effect that can be carefully studied, and so credibility eludes the field.

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        ” No replication in 20 years has survived peer review.”

        what is that BS claim ?

        *there is no critics that survived,a nd that is maintained…

        what is your concept of peer reviewed ? dumping a paper upfront and not giving argument ? using theory ? I expect challenge on the calorimetry.

        About He4, claiming generally that He4 evidence were not conclusive and not giving detail is the usual way to reject a fact without having read the single thing or identified the least problems…

        find a written critic that is not well answered.

        Or course one can challenge the precision, but th reality of He4/heat connection is confimed.

        about tritium you repeat fuzzy critics based on false information, while many of the authors were experts in tritium measurement (unlike the critics).

        The argument tha tritium is not commensurate to hot fusion ration is a theory argument, thus void. it is the majority of cold fusion denial argument… the theory says…

        If even low quantity of tritium and neutrons is observed, something nuclear happen and this mean that the critics are wrong when claiming nothing nuclear can happen.

        “The problem is that after 25 years, there is still not an experiment that anyone skilled in the art can do, and get quantitatively predictable positive results”.

        Moreover there are many protocols that have better replications. For example Fralick have been replicated by Biberian, then by Tsinghua University (w infinicon), then by Nasa GRC in 2008. it is more easy to reproduce tha F&P.

        F&P electrolysis have been cross replicated by Navy NRL/SRI/ENEA joint work

        https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf?sequence=1

        http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DominguezDanomalousr.pdf

        https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf?sequence=1

        again you claim based on obsoled and biased data.

        fact is that there is no survivingc ritics agains cold fusion calorimetry.

        that it is massively replicated, and that if initially the reproducibility was much below 50%, it is above 50%when best practice are used (like palladium provider selection and surface treatment), and nearly at 100% for some protocols (like US Navy Spawar codeposition, or Fralick gas permeation).

        at least cold fusion authors have tried to publish in peer reviewed journals (including some specialised in electrochemistry), and more than 150 have succeeded.

        Critics, beside the 4 refuted, never wrote something, even unreferred.

        if you follow the scientific method, cold fusion is replicated, published and peer reviewed, and no critic have been written and have survived the answers, being maintained in public.

        all we hear as “evidence” is unpublished and un challengeable.

        Beaudetet have a list of characteristic of critics that match what we see here, presented as evident, but without any foundation:

        http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=164

        In general, skeptics display the following habits.

        1. They do not express their criticism in those venues where it will be subject to peer review.

        2. They do not go into the laboratory and practice the experiment along side the practitioner (as does the critic).

        3. Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based when they are merely guesses.

        4. Questions are raised that concern matters outside of the boundaries of the claimed observation.

        5. Satire, dismissal, and slander are freely employed.

        6. When explanations are advanced for a possible source, ad hoc reasons are instantly presented for their rejection. These rejections often assert offhand that the explanation violates some physical conservation law.

        7. Evidence raised in support of the claims is rejected outright if it does not answer every possible question. No intermediate steps to find a source are acceptable

  • friendlyprogrammer

    I am a Engineer and had trouble wrapping my head around what was being said. I shall endeavor to understand it fully, but if anyone is willing to dumb this PDF down a bit I’d appreciate it. I may speak for a few of the other ‘dummies” here.

    • Job001

      Over simple very crude visual analogy:

      Think of it like many parallel Newtons cradles. Most of the positrons(balls) are low energy, a few go really fast. The fast local DB’s (associated with lattice impurities, i.e. local messed up Newtons cradle) catalyze coulomb barrier tunneling to permit LENR.

      Disclaimer;This energy abnormalities visual analogy is not a physical thing nor a serious proposal. I’ve read the report several times and it’s curious and complicated with some good ideas I suspect.

  • Job001

    Vladimir Dubinko’s theory provides an interesting perspective. I like its complexity and simplicity; Arrhenious reaction rate, multi body interaction, free electron screening/tunneling, discrete breathers, coulomb barrier limitations, impurity effects, anharmonicity, THz waves(rogue waves?), etc.
    What is interesting is that many possible mechanisms exist that have not been eliminated. These mechanisms cannot be eliminated by egotistical physicists proclamations.
    I propose “interacting rogue waves” between the electron cloud and constrained positron cloud. I’ll be the first to say, “NO, absolutely not!”, rogue waves were accepted NOT to exist for 200 years, at least until satellite cameras spotted them.

  • GreenWin

    That’s just gobbledygook kemo. Conversely, Watson made his opinion of a “goodly number of scientists” abundantly clear. Huizenga fits nicely.

  • GreenWin

    “Many [deniers are] cantankerous fools who unfailingly backed the wrong horses.
    One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in
    contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers
    of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow- minded
    and dull, but also just stupid.”
    ” James Watson, Nobel Laureate Physiology (DNA)

    Another bold assertion.

  • Gerard McEk

    Interesting, if the autor is right, the LENR phenomenon has similar roots as the semiconductors where after many years of research it was found that impurities have a decisive influence on the phenomenon. The micro-processor and our vast dependence of the IT sector as a whole may predict how our future will be influenced by LENR, once we understand what is going on and the LENR science is established.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      In principle, the idea that ‘impurities’ in the palladium could be a decisive factor is not new, see

      http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1998/1998Passell-EvidenceForLithium6Depletion.pdf

      However, Dubinko connects the dots and presents even a quantitative approach. A momentary shortcoming is the lack of new experimental data, which would support his hypothesis a posteriori. But it’s a theoretical paper, and of course one can only proceed step by step.

      • Gerard McEk

        Thanks Andreas, I read about Li, but did not see the quite interesting article supporting the claim. Now that we have also a theory combining this and and many other observations seen in CF research we may be on the right track!

  • Gerrit

    Vladimir Dubinko hasn’t published about cold fusion/LENR before as far as I know, but another researcher at Kharkov, V.F. Zelenski, has been involved with cold fusion since the beginning.

    Interesting development. More and more new researchers are looking at LENR, it is not being frowned upon anymore.

    Only the science press hasn’t understood the situation yet.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      It remains to be seen if this paper will be accepted by the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. If so, it could be helpful in patent issues, since it seems to demonstrate a way to explain the possibility of cold fusion without making ‘exotic’ claims. Independently of that, the proposed quantitative model might be useful for the optimization of existing LENR devices. Trial-and-error is an effective method, but extremely time-consuming if there are thousands or millions of possible configurations.

      • Owen Geiger

        For sure, this paper has a much better chance of getting published if Rossi/IH come out with a very positive report soon, and open a working plant for invited guests. I’d say Dubinko’s timing is perfect.

  • Charles

    I hope some chap out there is accumulating and storing all the sayings of the nay-sayers (Krivit, Huezinger, MIT Prof, Cal Prof, ?Mary Yugo) and will someday print a book or scientific paper that does not necessarily ridicule them (but that would be ok too), but instead shows that the big time hotshots of the day are not infallible. It sure would help the out-fronters of the future.

    • Gerrit

      What worries me also is that a lot of the discussions on the internet forums will vanish after some time. It will be hard to explain the situation to the next generation when most of the dimwitted comments will not be available anymore.

      The establishment (science, science press, journals) will claim they were not to blame, but that they did everything right. The pseudo skeptics will have vanished overnight and will be replaced by and equal number of “I always said so” experts.

    • Job001

      “Excess Heat” by Charles G. Beaudette is a well done history that cuts the negative biased no slack.

    • mcloki

      will make a great Nova episode

  • Fortyniner

    Perhaps IH’s legal department has been quietly busy, removing the need for Rossi to defend himself?

  • jousterusa

    I think that’s largely because Steven Krivit has been so thoroughly discredited.

    • GreenWin

      It’s almost as if he were swallowed whole, by a black hole. :(

  • Gerrit

    a whole new field of physics, you say ?

    Don’t you remember that Huizenga stated that we know a priori that such a thing cannot be:
    “Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat.”

    • kemosabe

      There’s a “furthermore” there. Did you look up to see what that referred to? The sentence immediately before reads: “If the reported intensity of nuclear products is orders of magnitude less than the claimed excess heat, then the excess heat is not due to a nuclear reacton process.” Context is important.

      • GreenWin

        Defending the one scientist destined to become the most discredited in human history is a treacherous road. Even with full context, Huizenga was, is today, and shall forever be as wrong as the flat earthers he descends from.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          Context is always tricky. Apparently the quote “640kb ought to be enough for everybody” was never said by Bill Gates but everybody believes otherwise. Though in Huizenga’s case I fully agree with you: The guy was just plain wrong. Context not withstanding.

          • kemosabe

            Huizenga was right in that quote, even if cold fusion is real. It’s a matter of definition that a reaction has reaction products. If there are no reaction products, then a reaction didn’t happen. So he said, if it’s not nuclear, and it’s not non-nuclear, then it’s experimental error. Your view of it notwithstanding.

            • GreenWin

              Hilarity! Still defending one of science’s most narrow minds? Huizenga looked for “products” he knew and would recognize. Huizenga rivals Lord Kelvin’s “Heavier than air flight is impossible,” prediction. Of course Kelvin made a few correct assumptions in his career. Huizenga will have only a record of ignorance and obfuscation to his eternal credit. That is fact. No weasel room, kemo.

            • Gerrit

              The only correct conclusion is: if it is not a known nuclear process and it is not a known non-nuclear process then it is either some yet unknown process or experimental error.

              But the nuclear scientists never allowed the “unknown process” hypothesis to be fairly investigated. All positive results had to be (a priori) experimental error and therefore there was nothing to investigate. And anyone who did investigate was mocked and ridiculed.

              It is only now, 25 years later, that we see many other previously unknown effects happening at the nano scale.

              • kemosabe

                Nuclear scientists have no power to “not allow” investigation. In spite of mock and ridicule, dozens of scientists investigated with hundreds of millions in funding, and progress still eludes them 25 years later.

                And nuclear reactions happen on the femto scale, a million times smaller than the nano-scale. Whatever progress has occurred on the nano-scale, none of it is relevant to nuclear processes at rates that produce macroscopic heat.

            • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

              He was right *in his own understanding of physics* that it was not possible because of the missing byproducts and the coulomb barrier. The underlaying assumption was that it had to be based on the hot fusion reaction.

              He was wrong in dismissing any other possibility to explain the actual results. In fact, he claimed that it must be about errors in measurements where the experimental results cleary said something was happening. You cannot simply dismiss facts just because they dont fit your view. That’s not science.

            • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

              The vision of Huizenga is not incompetence like with Morrison or taubes, who are clowns.
              It is over specialized competence… the dinosaures vs mamal, the corp vs startup….

              Huizenga was right that if there was no nuclear product, by definition it is not nuclear…
              But then he propose HIS (physicist) conception of the REQUIRED products of hot fusion: neutrons, gamma, tritium at huge quantity…
              clearly today LENR don’t follow that contraint, and this fact is measured.

              There is He4, commensurate with heat, but it does not follow the expected branch ratio of hot fusion…

              his error is to imagine that cold fusion is hot fusion.

              it is in a way as streetlight fallacy. He take as only possibilities, the one that he knows already… assuming that his knowledge are total.

              he refuse to consider hot fusion because require energy is huge…

              More than that, he refuse to imagine aneutronic fusion because there is none based on deuterium easier than hot fusion…

              for the gamma he base his position on the fact that assuming two-body free-space physics, to conserve momentum and dissipate energy, it is required to produce an energetic gamma…
              There is a theoretical impossibility that fusion happen without gamma with two-body interaction.

              He is not stupid enough to ignore that it is happening in or on a lattice, thus that some collective effect can cause effects more rich interactions… Sure he know Mossbauer effect…

              his fallacy was not to ignore that, but to express a streetligh fallacy : that since all known interaction inside a lattice are unable to explain LENR, then LENR is impossible… with the implicit belief that physicist know all, or at least that they know all the energy range of possible effects…

              so for me Huizeng is simply a competent parrot of the streetlight fallacies of physicists… who imagine that they know all, and thus that anything they ignore is a chemist mistake.

              • kemosabe

                He4 was claimed in refereed literature 20 years ago in a crude experiment with low power output claims. There is no replication of those results in refereed literature, even though there are claims of power thousands of times higher. McKubre and Gozzi (in refereed literature) specifically admit failure to observe definitive He4. Although everyone know this is an important experiment, there are no definitive results, and no one has been working on it in more than a decade.

                Nuclear reactions have been studied at all energy levels, in all phases of matter, over all accessibly temperatures and pressures. In particular, they have been studied in great detail in metal hydrides for nuclear weapons purposes and for commercial neutron sources, in which nuclear reactions are actually initiated in metal hydrides in off-the-shelf turn-key products. There is also extensive studies of metal hydrides for development of batteries. These things are well-studied in exactly the context of cold fusion, so the idea that skeptics are blinkered by vacuum, two-body reactions is a rationalization. Nuclear reactions in metal hydrides were considered back in 1989ff precisely because of the cold fusion claims.

                The Mossbauer effect is entirely consistent with predictions, and measures influence of chemical effects on nuclear energies in the range of parts per 10^11 (~10^-7 eV), so there is nothing there that supports cold fusion claims.

                No one believes they know everything, but almost everyone thinks he knows enough that a golf ball will fall to the ground on mars, based on theory, even though the experiment has not been done. Skeptics of cold fusion are not that confident, but confident enough to regard existing erratic evidence for it as far more consistent with confirmation bias and experimental error.

                • Warthog

                  The helium/energy balance evidence WAS replicated….more than once. I’ve read the experiments and procedures. Experimentation was VERY carefully done, and the latest addressed all the possible theoretical “errors”. Your information is out of date.

                • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

                  “But a 1 kW excess power claim with 50% error is (ordinarily) a more convincing demonstration of an excess heat phenomenon than a 1 mW claim with 1% error, ”

                  it is true for mom&pop… for scientist no. anyway the problem is not scientific. as you say, skeptic assume every scientist that have a positive result is incompetent or frauding…no need of any evidence because they are the best. end of the story.

                  “What does “no room” mean? They have published things after report 41, which are longer.”

                  read my links please

                  please GET INFORMED

                  Science (I always mix between that duopoly) answered quickly , without any review that they had no room

                  http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchieste/documenti/letteraSCIENCE001.pdf

                  about groupthink you shoudl really read theory of groupthink.

                  groupthink happen when something is consensual, and when not following it is ruining your life.

                  this fits well the

                  onece again GET INFORMED

                  http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

                  “Rothwell has not made a new point in a decade, and every one of his points has been deconstructed in various on-line forums repeatedly. I’m not interested in taubes, but Morrison is highly qualified, followed the field closely until his death, and remained a skeptic, in spite of his initial optimism for cold fusion.”

                  it is deconstructed in your biased mind, by incompetent people who refuse like you to see the evidences.

                  morrisson was imagining that degassing could explain all… he was propved fals and still continued to fool colleagues… probably the parrot who informed you too…

                  http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

                  “In rare cases, a few scientists have been guilty of even more unethical behavior. McKubre and other prominent cold fusion scientists have given copies of journal papers to prominent critics, including Douglas Morrison, Robert Park, and John Huizenga. The papers directly contradict assertions made by the critics regarding matters of fact, not opinion, such as the amount of energy produced by cells in continuous bursts, the percent of input versus output, or the amount of chemical energy that a mass 0.5 grams of palladium deuteride will release as it degasses. Morrison often claims the degassing can account for the heat produced during an experiment performed by Fleischmann and Pons. Fleischmann gave him a paper showing conclusively that he is mistaken by a factor of 1,700. Morrison has been told about this mistake countless times, at conferences, in writing, and in a formal reply published in Physics Letters A. Yet he recently contacted a Nobel laureate and repeated the same misinformation. Fortunately, the Nobel scientist contacted me, and I was able to give him the correct numbers. as garwin visiled the lab with lewis”

                  please read the citation and don’t parrot chatting on blogs by incompetent people who thing they can challenge professiona electrochemist.

                  for Gary taubes this paragraph show the unimaginable level of incompetence of tha author, adulated by skeptics,never criticized by them :

                  “Gary Taubes is another prominent critic. He made many misinformed claims in his book, on the radio, and in the mass media. He may not be qualified to read journal papers, because he does not appear to understand basic concepts such as electricity. He claims people sometimes measure electrolysis amperage alone and not voltage, and he thinks that regulated power supplies put out more electricity over the weekend because factories use less power. He thinks some researchers measure tritium once, after the experiment, without establishing a baseline or taking periodic samples. His book is filled with hundreds of similar errors. Perhaps the most mind-boggling one was his statement that a cell might have huge temperature gradients, “say fifty degrees hotter on one side than the other.”

                  This is like asserting that you might stir a cup of coffee, drink from the right side and find it tepid, but when you turn the cup around and drink from the left side, it will be steaming hot.”

                  you visibly live in a groupthink, refusing as the groupthink theory explain, to read dissenting data, and of course to belive in what is said in.

                  the conclusion of Jed is summarizing the method of manipulation, that visibly works :

                  “Taubes’ book was recommended in enthusiastic blurbs by four Nobel laureates and the chairman of the American Association of the Advancement of Science. These people could not have actually read the book, or if they did, their judgment was skewed by animosity. This shows how easy it is to spread false information, and how careless distinguished scientists can be. It takes only a small group of people to poison the well of public opinion. There may be a few other active critics in the mass media, but most attacks originate from these four: Morrison, Park, Huizenga, and Taubes. They are not famous or influential. They succeed because many scientists bear a grudge against cold fusion, and are willing to believe the worst about it. When Robert Park attacked it with inflammatory ad hominem rhetoric, a room packed with hundreds of members of the American Physical Society (APS) applauded and cheered.”

                • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

                  about mossbauer effect you are right and I was saying the same, that it was a lattice effect but not able to explain LENR.

                  My point was saying that physicist like most streetlight scientists, despite the fact that they don’t know all the possibilities of pseudo particles and collective effects, transforme their ignorance into being certain it is impossible to transfer MeV energy into keV photons by a collective phenomenon…

                  about helium, as said it was measured in double bling by Bush , from Miles experiments and correlated with good precision .

                  If you refuse good precision as an evidence, better not be a scientist.

                  tea kettle argument is for mummies.

                  as competent calorimetricians says, measure of tiny powers are better than at kW value.

                  Note also that Enea Report41 propose a more simple question, qualitative, and correlate some He4 with some heat, and no measured heat with no measured He4…

                  statistically the test is more solid.

                  anyway there is tritium, gamma, neutrons, at tiny but clear quantities, which prove that something impossible and nuclear is happening, even if it is not hot fusion.

                  where di you get the beliefs that He4 was badly measured ? wikipedia errors… it is knowne the admin are deluded dictators

                  http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

                  Of maybe is it Taubes, Morrison books … known incompetents

                  http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

                  or lewis and hansen … less incompetent but incompetent for sure

                  http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miles-Examples-of-Isoperibolic-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf

                  or Huizenga, parks, having stubborn mind of denialist locked in their beliefs, and their vested interests.

                  http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=349

                  Beaudette talk of the mistakes in Taube’s book from page 319

                  he synthetise in a table:

                  “summation

                  Errors Made in Response to the Utah Claims

                  The errors made in the evaluation of the Fleischmann and Pons claim of anomalous

                  heat are as follows.

                  Errors of a technical nature.

                  1. The Department of Energy’s failure to evaluate the anomalous heat experiments.

                  2. The careless assumption of calorimetry error in all the successful heat experiments.

                  3. The adoption of Irving Langmuir’s name and terminology “pathological science” without invoking his technical criteria.

                  4. The criticism of cold fusion without commitment to a laboratory based, hands-on evaluation of the claim in question.

                  5. The inability of the scientific community to understand the proper place of failed experiments.

                  6. The scientific significance of difficult replication was woefully exaggerated.

                  Entirely surprising to those involved in the original announcement was error in the matter of scientific protocol.

                  7. The trumpeting of absolute appraisal exclusively to the press that were based upon uncertain experiments and analysis.

                  8. The early polarization of the evaluation process by means of ad hominem commentary.

                  9. Inordinate haste.

                  10.The animated attention given the claim of nuclear fusion to the virtual exclusion of the separate claim of significant power generation.

                  11.The scientific community beset those exploring this field with the slanderous accusation of “believer.”

                  12.Finally, and most corrupting of all, was the precipitous institutionalization of opinion that there was no new science in the field:

                  a. During the first six years Nature, the Wall Street Journal, and Scientific American have adopted a rigid stance against reporting advances in cold fusion research.

                  b. The APS publicly and officially ridiculed the field for the first six years.

                  c. The Patent Office was absolutely rigid in refusing to consider patent applications on their merits.

                  d. The Department of Energy was utterly deaf to accomplishments after 1989.

                  e. In their 1995 publication “On Being a Scientist” the NAS makes several references to cold fusion research as an example of how science should not be done, but offers no comment about the proper conduct of scientific evaluations.

                  13.While the scientist is responsible for the correctness of what he has published, no member of the DOE Panel has argued that a further review was needed in light of the work done after 1989.”

                  he is also detailing critics on the proeminent critics, in chapter 22 and disseminated in the whole book.

                • GreenWin

                  Alainco. You really know better than to engage the well known shill here. His tactics follow the Disinfo Field Guide closely; circular argument with large dollops of pseudoscience pretense. These are the works of a nautical cartoon unworthy of attention or response. i.e. DON’T FEED OUR TROLLS. :)

      • Gerrit

        Context is important, indeed. The context is that Glenn T. Seaborg had to brief president Bush (sr) on cold fusion:

        “I decided to take my background as a nuclear scientist and really come
        to the sensible conclusion that this work was not right, that it was
        really cold. You couldn’t do it. So that’s what I told him at that time. I said, “You can’t just go out and say this is not valid. You’re going
        to have to create a high-level panel that will study it for six months,
        and then they’ll come out and tell you it’s not valid,” and that’s what
        he did.”

        And Huizenga, who chaired the created ERAB panel, did just that. And wrote a book about it a few years later.

        • Job001

          We bias our message to our audience.
          Bush representing FF was receptive to “not valid”, it was what he/they wanted to hear.
          Also True for the physics community which wanted to hear “not valid” because their research funding(funding bias) was/is at issue.
          Follow the money!

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Though in retrospect it may be funny to see someone so wrong, the damage caused by that single individual is immense. One involuntary starts to think about some other claims such as the earth revolves around the sun and the initial reaction to that. In the end it all came good but the cost was always high.

  • Daniel Maris

    I remember reading some time ago that no just photons and sub atomic particles exhibit dual behaviour (wave and particle) but also objects as large as atoms…I think maybe even molecules.

    • Fortyniner

      The theory of ‘holographic reality’ espoused by David Bohm, Alain Aspect, David Peat and others describes a complex model of reality in which all material things are essentially just interference patterns in an underlying matrix, and can switch states in response to ‘non physical’ factors. http://www.statpac.org/walonick/reality.htm

      Bohm’s contribution (‘blink theory’ and implicate order) seems particularly interesting: http://davidcenter.com/documents/Spirit/Bohms_Reformulation.pdf

      Brain-hurting stuff, but IMHO intellectually far more satisfying than reductive, mechanistic models.

      • GreenWin

        Absolutely agree Peter. Bohm taught me QM, followed quickly by implicate order and fascinating views “On Creativity.” He confounded great minds like Freeman Dyson, who asked, “Where are the equations?”

        Evidence I have indicates a “holographic universe” readily identified by bounds on granularity or resolution – postulated by Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage in “Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation.” http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

        Aside this theory, how does one prove such a concept? Demand the simulation render extreme high resolution imaging – then measure render latency. Any latency > human consciousness confirms a numeric, i.e. mechanical simulation.

        This particular sim is flawed in reflection mapping.

  • Bruce Williams

    There is very definitely something going on at the nano-level : there are too many witnesses to this, fellow-followers of this site know this and who are the major players better than I do.There is some new news in Nuclear Physics on the way ! May it happen very soon !

    • mcloki

      I wonder, If this boils down to special geometries within latices creating favourable conditions for “extreme dynamic closing of adjacent H/D atoms required for the tunnelling through the Coulomb barrier.” if these geometries could be printed with the proper metals? OR am I an order of magnitude off.

  • mecatfish

    I can feel the strings getting loose. The E-Cat is about ready to be let out of the bag. Wish they would hurry up. I really dont want big O to put boots on the ground when oil will be obsolete because of this.

    • LilyLover

      Oil could have been obsolete with solar alone.

      • MikeP

        That’s true … natural gas could provide the fill in power …

      • Manuel Cruz

        Each solar plant requires a supporting gas plant. This makes the war on Ucrania pretty interesting, because the gas supply to Europe got cut just when Germany closed all its nuclear power plants to switch to solar. Not only is solar many orders of magnitude worse than nuclear, but it also has been rendered useless with that move from Russia. Fortunately I live in a country that doesn’t depend on russian gas.

        • Alain Samoun

          “solar (is) many orders of magnitude worse than nuclear” Care to explain that?

          “Fortunately I live in a country that doesn’t depend on Russian gas” Do you see Russia from your window? ;=).

    • Charles

      Is that a capital O in “big O” or is it a 0 as in nothing. Well, since I just typed it out, I can tell. Sorry to bother you catfish.