Huffington Post Science Blog Calls for More LENR Research

On the Huffington Post Science Blog today, David H. Bailey of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (retired) and University of California, and Jonathan M. Borwein, Laureate Professor of Mathematics, University of Newcastle, Australia have written an article titled “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: Papers and Patents” in which they take a serious, but very cautious look at some of the recent developments in the LENR field.

Bailey and Borwein discussed LENR in an article about fusion last month and said that while there was reason for skepticism, there was a chance that Andrea Rossi could have discovered something that could revolutionize energy production. In this new article, the authors continue with their caution, but point out that there are some interesting signs. They write:

In the past few years, activity in the LENR arena has picked up considerably, with over20 organizations involved, ranging from universities, national laboratories and NASAto corporations such as Mitsubishi and Toyota. Notables such as Bill Gates and former U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu have expressed interest.

 

Bailey and Borwein focus on papers and patents published by Brillouin and Rossi (and independent E-Cat testers) and admit that if what they report is accurate then we are looking something very important. However, they then go on to emphasize that everything about LENR goes against what physicists say is possible. The Coulomb barrier should not be able to be breached at low temperatures, and it is should not be possible to produce large energy gains without observing radiation.

The authors explain that some notable supposed breakthroughs in science that have been broadcasted around the world have turned out to be based on wrong data, and that LENR could turn out to be the same. However, despite their abundance of caution, Bailey and Borwein feel it’s important to cover the topic.

The present authors are as intrigued about these results as anyone. If upheld, their significance can hardly be overstated, particularly if they can be parlayed into practical, safe, green energy solutions for the world’s economy. What’s more, many other researchers worldwide can and should participate in learning more about these remarkable phenomena. Clearly there are numerous aspects of these experiments that deserve significantly more study, whether or not true nuclear processes are occurring.

147 Replies to “Huffington Post Science Blog Calls for More LENR Research”

  1. I rarely comment from my cell phone as I can’t log in from it, but this article is worth doing so, as it’s a clear sign that the proverbial dam has a crack and now a fairly strong jet of water is gushing out through it. Amazing to see the crack widening with each fair mainstream article.

  2. This is a surprise. I do wish the article conveyed the relationship with Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat, the change that it means. Bring on the calls for more research.

  3. These cannot be “real” scientists, they are clearly imposters.
    All “real” scientists are under a strict censorship regarding Cold Fusion and many other important scientific subjects, so these traitors are defying the holy priests and should be ostracized immediatly.
    All “real” scientists should laugh at and debunk what they are saying before these Cold Fusion crackpots are taken seriously.
    The religious Dogmas of science are at stake, destroy their careers now.

      1. Mats, Ha, yes but the absolute Truth, it would have felt much better if the science I love had done their jobs correctly and un-corruptly 25 years ago.
        Will this change science regarding the many other subjects that these half-wits deny and debunk, regardless of the Evidence?

        1. Not for sure I guess. I believe that physics must open their eyes now but will that affect other areas of science? There are other debates out there I guess.

    1. I think they know exactly the things they urge caution about. It is probably a professional necessity and damn good theater. Bless their politically correct hearts.

      1. Ophelia, time for these “politically correct” yes men and women to start doing their jobs and stop being self-centered, establishment following automatons, with no care for the millions of people who, potentially, suffer and die through their gutless refusal to follow the most basic scientific principles.

        1. They were more interested in weaponizing it.
          A few people have researched that field but they have tended to go off the reservation. It is that which they fear most. Smart people going off the reservation. Perhaps it is best left out of their hands.

  4. Again a very important sign that scientists start to acknowledge the developments in the LENR field. Soon snowball effects will enhance momentum!

  5. oh look another mainstream media reporting that NASA is looking into LENR.
    You won’t find that information in the wikipedia article though. 🙂

    1. Wikipedia works in reverse, it links to msm stories most of the time. The msm is the “primary source”. Some msm articles (such as this one), refer to wiki…which is not good actually. A journalist needs to gather his/her own info.
      Anyway, any positive msm articles on lenr are not going to appear on wiki for some time, this subject is under “watch”.

  6. These good and brave scientists have reported their views in the Huffington Post a good open-minded organ that does much to try and inform it’s readers of the important work being done by True scientists on subjects banned by the establishment.
    My question would be, why is their important and potentially World changing report not in one of the laughably called premier journals

  7. I am happy with this article. Step by step LENR awareness is spreading.

    However, the authors could have spent more words on the science story and, for instance, explicitely mention SKINR.

    They assert that peer review is needed before anything should be taken seriously, but they should also explain how the whole peer review system is seriously flawed as other scientists have already noticed.

    If science would take peer review seriously, then it must be accepted that the phenomenon is real, because of the 100s of peer reviewed published papers reporting it.

    The fact that science is stating that peer review is the “golden way”, but at the same time dismissing the direction this “golden way” is pointing to is simply disingenuous. This should have been highlighted in the article.

    1. Some peer reviews obviously have higher value than others. Who are the peer reviewers that counts? Those are the guys that should open their eyes and IF honest should forward the message of the NOT working system.

      1. Other scientists have noted already that only top tier journals like Nature and Science are counted as real peer review while we know these journals carefully pick only those interesting papers that will keep them on top of the citation index.
        Then funding is mainly granted for work that will end up in these top tier journals. It distorts science.

        These top tier journals have flat out refused to consider publishing cold fusion papers.

        1. If you came with a credible paper on LENR that reported on both a theory and a corroborating experiment, then both these journals would publish it. But you would need both ingredients, and the experimental study must be very well executed to the highest standards. That is what the aim of LENR research should be, not on demonstrations in front of investors and journalists.

          1. Because of what I noted above: to be published in these two journals you need a combination of theory and experiment, both of the topmost quality. I have this far, regrettably, not come across any paper in LENR that lives up to this and that has a positive result.

          2. By those standards Becquerel would never have been able to get his photographic plate and uranium salts experiment published.

          3. Leanard Weinstein, Senior Research Fellow at National Inst. Aerospace:

            “…As to the lack of theory before publishing data, that is a big joke. Most astronomical results show data results, and theories come and go later. Superconductors were observer well before a theory was developed. In fact, most scientific advances were observed, and then theories attempted. Do we even have a theory for gravity at present?”

            “…Peer review is a good filter, but neither proves or rejects most work, and has been badly abused by many,…”

            Are you in a position to judge on the standards needed, Albert?

          4. AlbertNN, why are you talking about these comics as if they are in any way relevant to science?
            These are the clowns that have ignored and denied Cold Fusion for 25 years.
            You do not seem to be aware of how silly you seem referring to them as if they have any relevance to real science.

          5. what is funny is that they refused to correct errors in their published papers

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

            based on bad method

            http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miles-Examples-of-Isoperibolic-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf
            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedg.pdf#page=138
            , if not fraud

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

            and after they finally desperately rejected Oriani paper after a positive peer review (asking for theory and then bashing the theory, despite the reviewers)

            they finally organized a ban of even considering LENR paper as the report 41 Deninno

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

            so forget about any logic, it is desperate Kuhnian denial of anomalies.

            http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

            it deserve only closing those science comics.

          6. That is not a formal ban on LENR by Science. It is their standard answer for everything that does not pass the editor, I think that everybody that has tried to publish there has gotten this at least once.

          7. These discussions do not matter,
            Rossi does not need a peer reviewed article. He is an inventor Industrialist. All he needs is a working product to take to market.

            A paper published in Nature or Science to suit their requirements would actually be detrimental as it would merely give away for “free” hard earned knowledge that could be used against his best interests. Rossi’s stated goal. Let the Market decide.

          8. Sorry, but no. A “theory” is NOT needed for the scientific validation of LENR. The only necessity is one or more replicated experiments. The notion that “there has to be a theory” is NOT “science”…..it is pseudoscience. The rest of your post is correct….the experiment (or experiments) must be well done, and by credible scientists.

            Unfortunately for science, the latter has been done….over and over and over. Visit the LENR-CANR.org library of papers and read a few. Or read George Beaudette’s excellent book “Excess Heat”.

          9. What I claimed is that a theory is needed to be published in Nature or Science.

            And I would argue that without a theory you can’t say that the results of an experiment is due to LENR. Without the theory they will only be novel results that you do not have any explanation or theory of.

          10. Nature, Science, and you are wrong. Theory is irrelevant to scientific proof. Replicated experimental data is the SOLE criterion for proof of scientific validity. The idea that it is LENR is a theory (actually, it is a hypothesis). Pons and Fleischmann did NOT use the term “cold fusion”. Their comment was “an unknown nuclear process”.

            The presence of anomalous heat generation is a measured scientific fact….as is the detection of He4 (in Pd/D2 systems), and the generation of anomalous isotopes of other elements by other researchers. The three different types of replicated experimental results PROVE that whatever is going on is nuclear in nature.

            Any theory (actually, at this stage it is really a hypothesis) to be developed must explain all three of those established measured and replicated results. But NO theory is required for scientific proof. This is a false, nonscientific meme, and those who continue to use such arguments are doing major damage to “good science”.

          11. It is right that a theory is needed to publish in comics journal.
            If you follow pseudo scienc, and even bad LENR science, you see that they use too much theory, they base all their confidence in the theoy not on the evidences… that is a symptom.
            a modern variant is basing on computer models instead of measurements.

            what you say about “without a theory we cannot know it is LENR” is wrong.
            we can know it is nuclear even by sole heat because it cannot chemistry.
            moreover is have some coherence in the phenomenology.
            it is hydrogen, in transition metal lattice.
            few radiation, few tritium, fewer neutrons, triggered by high loading, by change in equilibrium, .

            Edmund Storms (read his book) explain well that coherencen, and propose even a separation from mild fusion, a lower energy hot fusion with neutrons, tritium, high energy… not LENR which is really not hot fusion at all.

          12. Without the theory they will only be novel results that you do not have any explanation or theory of.
            ***That happens all the time with HTSC, gravity, and dark matter. But those papers get published.

            Simple fact is, this was a pissing match between electrochemists and physicists. Electrochemists lost 25 years ago, but some of them kept at it, and now the physicists are about to be handed their hats.

            LENR results have been replicated more than 14,700 times, according to the Chinese Academy of Science.

            Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the Pons
            Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect.
            *
            http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)
            *

          13. Albert, my experience in the humanities suggests that paradigm shifts end up, not infrequently, *last* in the most highly accredited publications in a field. Isn’t the reason why this would be so pretty obvious?

            The established journals represent those of greatest authority at a given time within the field. This may be just because those who make it up are not just the best and the brightest but also the wisest and most far-seeing practitioners, but surely it is not hard to imagine other factors that might make these individuals or institutions not the most likely to be among the “early adopters” of a novel approach within their own field of expertise?

          14. AlbertNN, 25 years of corruption and incompetence is what main-line science has shown.
            Wake-up, the establishment is a paid for bunch of wasters.Learn a few scientific principles and stop defending these scientific destroyers.

          15. georgehants: You have provided a perfect example of my concern about your comments alienating people who might be valuable contributors. Your comment contains insulting assumptions that a) AlbertNN is asleep, b) does not know scientific principles, and c) is defending scientific destroyers.

            Your grasping for emotional satisfaction harms LENR development.

            Hang in there AlbertNN; there’s only one georgehants, love him as we do.

          16. bitplayer, if Albert or you are not aware of the proven corruption and incompetence from science regarding Cold Fusion for the last 25 years and are not prepared to clearly condemn such unprofessional neglect, then I recommend you both wake-up.
            Thank you for the chat, goodnight.

          17. Hi George,

            I was looking back at this for a second time, and I just wanted to say that I totally understand your passion and anger for what could have been in the past if Pons and Fleishmann had not been crucified, since that is effectively, what was done to them.

            It was a terrible thing, and there is no doubt that it was sustained afterwards by many other terrible actions and decisions. But I guess I find it more interesting to focus on the brave stories of the struggles of those — I think, for example, of the late Eugene Mallove, the once and future chief MIT science journalist who went rogue after the Pons and Fleishmann debacle because he knew they had been railroaded and the “nuclear phenomenon of some type” was a real one.

            And all the scientists — McKubre, Duncan, Focardi, Levi, and all the others now involved in serious LENR research — those people are part of science *too,* and are in fact following a scientific method more scrupulous and ethical than most of their establishment critics.

            To me this is where the excitement, and also the hope for something better, lies. We should be trying to get more of those, like Duncan once was, who still have not really looked at the evidence but might be persuaded if they did. Blaming people for what they did in the past seems to me to be a waste of energy when we could be encouraging and supporting those few who are doing the right thing.

          18. psi2u2, many thanks, hope is a big word.
            Admitting and recognizing mistakes is the first and necessary step to putting them right.
            Best

          19. Possibly. However, there’s still a fairly big gap between the ability to get experimental results *at all* and a theory that runs up against not only conventional wisdom but also most accepted (and easy to understand) formulaic frameworks.

            Although it seems that we’ve been reading papers that say the Coulomb barrier issue can be gotten around. And that the radiation can be trapped. And that neutrons can be absorbed. So the “impossibles” (if I got those right) can be undermined. But clearly there is not enough *publicly available* experimental evidence to be able to deduce exactly what is going on.

            However, if we knew the exact electrical data from the Lugano experiment, (which despite all the debate, maybe we do) and the exact composition of the starting powder, and we ran the test 100 times, perhaps it would be enough to say “most likely *this* is what’s happening”, and then, “so if we tweak *that* it should work better”, and if it did, we would be closer to a “real” theory.

            The ways forward at the moment seem to be MFMP and drumbeating, which is getting louder.

      2. Top tier Journals continue to publish LENR articles. For example the ultra-dense deuterium articles from Holmlid et al were published as below.

        There are however many articles of lesser quality that don’t get published, for understandable reasons.

        Also, when looking at the available data, scientists will not necessarily agree with the polemic viewpoint of this blog. There is as yet no coherent theory of LENR that explains the published anomalies and makes solid predictions that have been validated. And there are no published anomalies that provide indisputable evidence for new physics. Till that happens anomalies are interesting but fairly normal, certainly not enough to overturn existing theories.

        210. P.U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, “Fast atoms and negative chain cluster fragments from laser-induced Coulomb explosions in a super-fluid film of ultra-dense deuterium D(-1)”. Phys. Scripta, accepted.

        209. L. Holmlid, “Method and apparatus for generating energy through inertial confinement fusion”.
        Patentansökan.

        208. F. Olofson and L. Holmlid, “Superfluid ultra-dense deuterium D(-1) on polymer surfaces: structure and density changes at a polymer-metal boundary”.
        J. Appl. Phys. 111, 123502 (2012);DOI: 10.1063/1.4729078

        207. F. Olofson, A. Ehn, J. Bood, L. Holmlid, “Large intensities of MeV particles and strong charge ejections from laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium”.
        39th EPS Conference & 16th Int. Congress on Plasma Physics, Stockholm, 2012; 12-02-20, P1.105.

        206. F. Olofson and L. Holmlid, “Detection of MeV particles from ultra-dense protium p(-1): laser-initiated self-compression from p(1)”.
        Nucl. Intr. Meth. B 278 (2012) 34-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2012.01.036.

        205 L. Holmlid, “MeV particles from laser-initiated processes in ultra-dense deuterium D(-1)”.
        Eup. Phys. J. A 48 (2012) 11. DOI: 10.1140/epja/i2012-12011-0.

        204. P.U. Andersson, L. Holmlid, and S.R. Fuelling, “Search for superconductivity in ultra-dense deuterium D(-1) at room temperature: depletion of D(-1) at field strength > 0.05 T”.
        J. Supercond. Novel Magn. 25 (2012) 873-882. DOI: 10.1007/s10948-011-1371-6.

        203. P.U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, “Cluster ions DN+ ejected from dense and ultra-dense deuterium by Coulomb explosions: fragment rotation and D+ backscattering from ultra-dense clusters in the surface phase”.
        Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 310 (2012) 32-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijms.2011.11.004

        202. L. Holmlid, “Experimental studies of clusters of Rydberg matter and its extreme dense forms”. Invited review.
        J. Cluster Sci. 23 (2012) 5-34. DOI: 10.1007/s10876-011-0417-z.

        201. P.U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, “Fusion generated fast particles by laser impact on ultra-dense deuterium: rapid variation with laser intensity”.
        J. Fusion Energy 31 (2012) 249-256. DOI 10.1007/s10894-011-9468-2.

        200. L. Holmlid, “Sub-nanometer distances and cluster shapes in dense hydrogen and in higher levels of hydrogenRydberg Matter by phase-delay spectroscopy”.
        J. Nanopart. Res. 13 (2011) 5535-5546. DOI 10.1007/s11051-011-0543-4..

        199. L. Holmlid, “Diffuse interstellar bands (DIB) in space: almost all bands calculated from co-planar doubly excited He and metal atoms embedded in Rydberg Matter”.
        Astrophys. Space Sci. 336 (2011) 391-412. DOI 10.1007/s10509-011-0795-6.

        198. L. Holmlid, “Deuterium clusters DN and mixed K-D and D-H clusters of Rydberg Matter: high temperatures and strong coupling to ultra-dense deuterium”.
        J. Cluster Sci. 23 (2012) 95-114. DOI 10.1007/s10876-011-0387-1.

        197. L. Holmlid, “High-charge Coulomb explosions of clusters in ultra-dense deuterium D(-1)”.
        Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 304 (2011) 51–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ijms.2011.04.001.

        196. P.U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, “Superfluid ultra-dense deuterium D(-1) at room temperature”.
        Phys. Lett. A 375 (2011) 1344–1347. doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2011.01.035.

        195. L. Holmlid, “Large ion clusters HN+ of Rydberg Matter: stacks of planar clusters H7”.
        Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 300 (2011) 50-58. doi:10.1016/j.ijms.2010.12.008.

        194. P. U. Andersson, B. Lönn and L. Holmlid, “Efficient source for the production of ultra-dense deuteriumD(-1) for laser-induced fusion (ICF)”. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 82 (2011) 013503. doi:10.1063/1.3514985.

        193. M. Trebala, W. Rozek, L. Holmlid, M. Molenda, and A. Kotarba,”Potassium stabilization in ß-K2Fe22O34 by Cr and Ce doping studied by field reversal method”. Solid State Ionics (2011) . doi:10.1016/j.ssi.2010.08.004.

        192. L. Holmlid, “Common forms of alkali metals – new Rydberg Matter clusters of potassium and hydrogen”. J. Clust. Sci 21 (2010) 637-653. DOI: 10.1007/s10876-010-0291-0.

        191. S. Badiei, P. U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, “Laser-driven nuclear fusion D+D in ultra-dense deuterium: MeV particles formed without ignition”. Laser Part. Beams 28 (2010) 313-317 doi:10.1017/S0263034610000236.

        190. P. U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, “Deuteron energy of 15 MK in a surface phase of ultra-dense deuteriumwithout plasma formation: temperature of the interior of the Sun”. Phys. Lett. A 374 (2010) 2856–2860
        DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2010.03.009

        189. S. Badiei, P. U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, “Production of ultra-dense deuterium, a compact future fusion fuel”. Appl. Phys. Lett. 96 (2010) 124103. doi:10.1063/1.3371718.

        188. F. Olofson, P. U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, “Rydberg Matter clusters of alkali metal atoms: the link between meteoritic matter, polar mesosphere summer echoes (PMSE), sporadic sodium layers, polar mesospheric clouds (PMCs, NLCs), and ion chemistry in the mesosphere”. arXiv.org 10-02-08, astro-ph/1002.1570. http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1570

        187. S. Badiei, P.U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, “Laser-induced variable pulse-power TOF-MS and neutral time-of-flight studies of ultra-dense deuterium”. Phys. Scripta 81 (2010) 045601. doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/81/04/045601.

        186. P. U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, “Ultra-dense deuterium: a possible nuclear fuel for inertial confinement fusion (ICF)”. Phys. Letters A 373 (2009) 3067–3070. doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.046.

        185. L. Holmlid, H. Hora, G. Miley and X. Yang, “Ultrahigh-density deuterium of Rydberg matter clusters for inertial confinement fusion targets”. Laser and Particle Beams 27 (2009) 529–532.

        184. A. Kotarba and L. Holmlid, “Energy-pooling transitions to doubly excited K atoms at a promoted
        iron-oxide catalyst surface: more than 30 eV available for reaction”. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 11 (2009) 4351-4359. DOI: 10.1039/b817380j.

        183. S. Badiei, P. U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, “High-energy Coulomb explosions in ultra-dense deuterium: time-of-flight mass spectrometry with variable energy and flight length”. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 282 (2009) 70-76.Link to abstract and paper.

        182. L. Holmlid, “Nm interatomic distances in Rydberg Matter clusters confirmed by phase-delay spectroscopy”. J. Nanopart. Res. 12 (2010) 273-284. DOI 10.1007/s11051-009-9605-2.

        181. L. Holmlid, “Light in condensed matter in the upper atmosphere as the origin of homochirality: circularly polarized light from Rydberg Matter”. Astrobiol. 9 (2009) 535-542.

        180. L. Holmlid, “Nuclear spin transitions in the kHz range in Rydberg Matter clusters give precise values of the internal magnetic field from orbiting Rydberg electrons”. Chem. Phys. 358 (2009) 61–67.

        179. S. Badiei, P. U. Andersson and L. Holmlid, “Fusion reactions in high-density hydrogen: a fast route to small-scale fusion?” Int. J. Hydr. Energy 34 (2009) 487-495. Link to abstract and paper.

        1. There is as yet no coherent theory of LENR that explains the published
          anomalies and makes solid predictions that have been validated.
          ***There is as yet no coherent theory of High Temperature SuperConductivity (HTSC) that explains the published anomalies and makes solid predictions that have been validated. The same goes with gravity.

          And there are no published anomalies that provide indisputable evidence for
          new physics.
          ***That is because anomalies are loudly shouted down when there is an entrenched group of people who stand to gain by there being no anomalies to investigate (in this case, high temperature fusioneers who are sucking on the guvmint teet and developing Nuke weapons). That’s why HTSC results are regularly published but LENR results aren’t… there was no entrenched group who stood to lose their funding in HTSC.

          1. My reply to this would be that as the work of Holmlid et al I’ve posted on this thread, LENR anomalies most certainly are published, when experiments are written up in a convincing way. Scientists like anomalies, especially when presented with a coherent story.

            Whether such stories gain traction depends on their predictivity.

            HTSC theory is predictive, it proposes a mechanism which explains (most) of the HTSC data and which is not a step in the dark because it comes from quantum solid state theory which is supported by a wide range of other experiments. Related mechanisms look like they explain the rest. It is not a finished article because the interactions in materials are complex and (it now seems) there are multiple ways in which boson-like interactions can be engendered in lattices, not just Cooper pairs of electrons.

            So: for coherent theory I’d say the idea that within a lattice electrons, or other fermionic particles, can pair up to make bosonic pseudo-particles that multiply populate a single low energy state. You can see all you need is a bandgap between the low energy state and others, and some interaction that gives rise to bosonic behaviour. Complex because of the many possible pseudo-particles that can result and the many interactions that determine the size of the bandgap. Not complete because we have not investigated all of this stuff yet. Quantitative and predictive because you can investigate state transition energies in other ways and relate that to onset of superconductivity.

          2. LENR anomalies most certainly are published, when experiments are
            written up in a convincing way. Scientists like anomalies, especially
            when presented with a coherent story.
            ***You sound like a LENR newbie. LENR research has been actively suppressed for 2 decades. As an example, Ed Storms submitted one of his research articles to 42 different journals before getting past “peer” review. That isn’t happening in HTSC because there isn’t a group of government paid activists shooting down the research wherever they find it.

            Whether such stories gain traction depends on their predictivity.
            ***Nonsense. It depends upon whether there’s a group of well paid anti-scientific antagonists hounding the effort. HTSC has no such problem; LENR does.

          3. HTSC were also suppressed for some years, forced to be published as footnote not to have the paper rejected

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

            “Footnotes

            In fact, says James L. Smith, director of the Center for Materials Science of Los Alamos National Laboratory, the first two heavy-fermion superconductors discovered were originally reported as footnotes, because they were so unbelievable.

            Smith heads the Physical Metallurgy Group of the Materials Science and Technology Division at Los Alamos, and with colleagues Zachary Fisk and Jeffrey O. Willis, has done pioneering work in the discovery of new heavy fermion systems.”

            It is very common to have history rewritten to hide academic stupidity and misfunction.
            Watson&crick explain how DNBA was attacked untile the public success.

            Schechtmann explains well howe he was insulted by linus pauling.
            http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman-nobel-prize-chemistry-interview

            just read that long list of stupidity
            http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

  8. What’s becoming clear is that this site and others that relentlessly present the facts and offer clear-minded analysis of the situation are starting to carry the day.

    Finally.

    For new readers that come across this thread, a small but growing community has been trying to call attention to LENR for years now. We’ve done our homework. LENR is real. The E-Cat is almost certainly real (the only alternative being a mind-blowing never-seen before and utterly pointless megascam and mass conspiracy).

    LENR is a game-changer.

  9. And to add to the water leaking from the proverbial dam, an English version of the University of Verona article has been published, and I think it clears the matter a lot:

    “Gates, taken to the laboratories by Professor Testa and by the scientists of the Centre, wanted to discover the research activities in the field of low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR), more known as cold fusion, led in the institute.

    As a matter of fact, the Enea Frascati Research Centre is considered a high quality centre in this field on a worldwide level. Some of the most qualified scientists in the world in the field of cold fusion, such as Vittorio Violante, studied in this centre. For this reason, the USA involved the Enea, only Non-American agency, in a research program of scientific great importance in the field of LENR.”

    http://www.univrmagazine.it/sito/vedi_articolo.php?id=2820

    1. Thanks for this Curbina. With the new Huffington P article, let’s hope Prof Testa amends his comments to make clear that Gates is NOT interested in hot fusion (its time has passed) – rather, Gates and other humanitarian organizations should insist on and accelerate the transition to LENR.

          1. Yes, I read it first in my mobile, and the comment’s were not showing. Now that I read it from the PC, I could comment via Facebook. I posted this: “I like this blog post, but I think that the authors give much emphasis
            to a peer review process that is known to be easily subject to bias.
            Julian Schwinger (Physics Nobel Prize winner together with Richard
            Feynman and Sin Itiro Tomonaga), was the first to experience the bias
            against LENR when trying to publish theory to explain the results. He
            even abandoned the ACS for this. Other Nobel prize winner that denounces
            the bias against LENR is Brian Josephson. I’m not claiming that the
            peer review is not necessary, just that in this case has failed
            miserably, and this is not sufficiently stressed out by the authors.”

        1. HERE is a very adroit comment from HP “Top Commenter” Leanard Weinstein, Senior Research Fellow at National Inst. Aerospace:

          “The authors start out accepting the discredited IPCC positions on global warming (no warming other than ENSO variation since 1998, and no models show skill at any realistic time scale), and go downhill from there a while before turning to the energy issue. There they take more positions, such as supporting hot fusion, which has cost many billion dollars, with little to show for it, and no realistic chance for even passing break even in many decades if ever (which is still worthless-you need much more than a net COP of 3 to make net power). They then get on the peer review bandwagon which has crashed. Peer review is a good filter, but neither proves or rejects most work, and has been badly abused by many, especially in the global warming debate…

          Supporters of LENR asked for support to develop the technology, but were treated poorly. When Rossi and others went out on their own, and made progress, they were then told to give the results away, since it would be so valuable to society. Instead, they chose to keep some details secret to allow them to make profit from the advance. As to the lack of theory before publishing data, that is a big joke. Most astronomical results show data results, and theories come and go later. Superconductors were observer well before a theory was developed. In fact, most scientific advances were observed, and then theories attempted. Do we even have a theory for gravity at present?”

          1. I have written the same exact defense of LENR almost word for word. Now we have Johnny-come-latelies saying the same thing but people listen because of who they are in terms of position in our society. Science is supposed to be free from such cultural bigotry but it isn’t.

  10. I too salute their courage. Every non-LENR scientist that comes out in favor of looking more deeply into this area is helping to move things along.

    The potential benefits are so large and the amount of money and resources needed to explore the science of LENR so small relative to other scientific efforts that it’s imperative that it happen as soon as possible. There’s really no reason to debate it. It’s a clear path and the only reason it has not been taken is resistance from those in a position to resist.

  11. I suggest that anyone wanting to further the cause of LENR share a link to that article via social media. The Huffington Post is a big enough name to get many to read that blog post. Getting the knowledge out to the masses is one good way of increasing the pressure behind the dam.

  12. It is a pity it takes so long for my replies to get accepted, when they at all are accepted. It really reduces my interest in discussing LENR at this site, and makes it more into a walled garden for a clique with exactly the same ideas. Which does not make for interesting reading, and is far removed from the scientific ideal.

    1. Moderation of new posters is a fairly common thing in forums. The formula typically takes into account how many posts you have made and how long you have been posting to the forum. This prevents drive by postings that amount to yelling fire in a movie theater. Keep posting eventually your posts will stop being moderated.

    2. Reading all your comments below I wonder if you are an editor at Nature. Your main argument is: “there has to be theory before any observation of facts can be presented in Nature or Science or anywhere for that matter”.
      I challenge you to sit down for a few hours and think of all the discoveries that were “observed” “before” the theory was developed.
      Now imagine removing all these discoveries from our lives, as if the peer RearView rags like Nature could have prevented their publication. Stone tools are out. Fire is out. The wheel is gone. Pointy sticks are out. We would not even be in the stone age. The human race probably would not be here today.

      Are you still attempting to prevent publishing on LENR in Nature?
      Are you trying to coverup the evidence of your involvement in suppressing publication?
      Are you involved in a massive crime against the planet?

    3. We don’t have a complete theory of quantum gravity or know if it is even a thing for sure, but we peer-review publish competing articles about observations related to it quite often. Or what about the nature of Dark Matter? You are also patently wrong: numerous, mathematically/experimentally possible theories for how the LENR process works have been proposed by academics, such as NAE theory and linear two-body bose-einstein theory, to name but a Few.

      So, none of the ignorant sounding nonesense. This site has many links to such theories if you but search to gain the required education.

        1. Aye, look up Dr. Kim at Purdue. Here is a link to one of his papershttp://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/publications/yekim/APFB-FewBodySystems.pdf

          1. I read that paper when it came out, and have been in email contact with Dr. Kim. That paper is not a “linear two-body bose-einstein theory”.

      1. The issue is whether any such theory makes predictions that are afterwards validated. Easy for a theory to take existing data and mold itself to them. Much harder for a theory to make definite predictions and thereby be proved wrong if it is wrong.

        Now: which of these theories make definite (not yet tested) new predictions that allow them to be confirmed or proved wrong? I’ll be interested in looking at them. I have looked at quite a lot of these theories already.

        1. I am honestly surprised. This has been talked about alot here. I guess we need a permanent resource for folks.

          No theory is a theory if it doesn’t have a testable hypothesis as its foundation, by definition. So the answer is, obviously, yes.

          Check out Dr. Kim’s (Purdue University) published papers on the matter, such as this one http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/publications/yekim/APFB-FewBodySystems.pdf

          He has many papers on this with testable results. His linear two body bose-einstein condensate theory is the one I feel the evidence most favors, but again, there are other theories with testable predictions, such as those by Edmond Storms.

  13. If you put flame to an unknown liquid and it becomes aflame and continues to burn after the the external source is removed is it not proof that the liquid is flammable?

  14. Pop, pop goes more concrete, drizzle, to heavy trickle. This is a major event in the continuous saga of the weakening dam of denial (ooops, sorry, repudiation for the sensitive). Huffington Post is a major bridge to the main stream media, many journalists are much aware.

    I am now writing this to you from a dear couple in Oxford MS (my wife’s childhood home). He is a major journalist for the conservative newspapers Tupelo Journal and the Oxford Citizen. When attempting to explain the LENR breakthroughs, he would immediately revisit the many energy inventions bought out and buried by the mega-petroleum/automobile entities, but hopes what I have betrayed comes to past.
    The best some of us followers can do is cast the seed of truth where some will take fertile ground.

    This is a tough thick dam to break through and may take a few sticks of MSM C4 behind the dam to crack it wide open. Hopefully this ‘seeding’ article will lead to igniting its fuse.

  15. This seems to be the most detailed “msm” publication on lenr so far. Its a blog but its msm blog.
    The number of links in that article is overwhelming. Many link to ECW, which simply means that ECW has become a vast resource for lenr and ecat.
    These guys have done some good homework. Well done.

  16. Please do stick around. Fresh perspectives are helpful. There aren’t too many outright attackers. There was long battle with the trolls (try ecatnews if you would like to see where that goes), and there is still need for vigilance. But Frank does a *f*a*b*u*l*o*u*s* job of posting information, and there is much intelligent examination of what he finds.

    1. I concur strongly with both these comments.

      And let me just add this. I have no experience at all with peer review in the sciences, but I have had quite a bit with the same process in the humanities, especially in literary studies, and if the process works in science as it does in the humanities, then, to be sure, it is to be celebrated as the best of all possible worlds but kept at arms length by an person of independent conscience.

      I think of Carl Sagan, for example, the principled devotee of the social and intellectual benefits of Cannabis consumption and inventor of the Cosmos series, who was in the closet his entire life on the important scientific question of what that plant is really all about. Sagan may even have been the one who suggested to Lester Grinspoon that he consider treating his 11 year old son, who was dying of Leukemia, with cannabis to treat his nausea — Grinspoon does not name Sagan in his anecdote about the significance of his reluctant decision to administer cannabis to his son, before he believed or *knew* that it would work, and before this character of the plant was understood or accepted to the extent that it is now. To the extent that it is, it is largely due to the clinical studies that Dr. Grinspoon himself conducted on children and other patients suffering from the same disease that took his son. I wonder where Carl Sagan would have been had he tried to argue something like that in a “peer reviewed” journal? He would probably have gone to jail. Dropping a hint to Dr. Grinspoon was a more strategic decision.

      The only good thing that one can say about peer review, in my opinion, is that we would be worse off without it. But my anecdote suggests that trying to turn the “peer review” of a particular era into a metaphysical truth, which is what defenders of the status quo ante seem to have been doing for a long time now, in a number of fields.

      From that indecisive point of view I have appreciated all sides in this discussion, each contributing something worthy of consideration.

  17. Well, I for one would like to be published in Science and Nature. Because it’s about real world cause and effect, not unicorn herding. You can curse and wish it away, but that won’t make a whit of difference. The power is there, and that’s the reality of how the world works: power, capability, networks of causes and effects. Anyone who wishes to see LENR succeed should very much want to see a strong LENR article in Science and Nature.

  18. AlbertNN, everyone gets that “random approval process” now and then. It may be something to do with the Disqus software. And Frank, with my support, has me on eternal moderation. If I get the least bit nasty or ugly, my comment gets tossed, which happens about 7% of the time. I think that I am getting better. Frank is my tamer.

    I apologize if I or anyone has attacked your character. We need fresh blood, and NO ONE has the right to castigate you, even if it is subtle. But remember, everyone here has or needs lessons in practical epistemology. This is the biggest change in science in perhaps EVER, so we have to be very careful about what we take to be true and untrue. Appealing to Science or Wikipedia will not cut it. We are talking REVOLUTION here. So, sometimes people get a little testy, and sometimes people fail to remember what intellectual soul searching they had to go through, which takes time.

    So, please stay.

  19. Welcome to the journey of understanding phenomenon of our common reality. It seams you are a beginner of understanding LENR. Keep searching you will get there!

  20. True. But it has been more than 20 days.
    10/12/2014 49259 times
    10/14/2014 69367 times
    10/17/2014 86381 times
    11/28/2014 more than 120k times

  21. Thanks for the link, the site is full of really interesting information now. They are an intriguing company, very low key, just like Mike McKubre. He is not given to hyperbole, always very careful and understated. Some people found his analysis of the ecat TIP report disappointing, but I was not surprised, they did leave themselves open to the pseudo-skeptics, and he merely pointed that out. He never said he doubted the results.

  22. In the 60’s.
    One day we’ll all have personal communicator & likely be able to see each other as we talk.
    Yeah, Right. When pigs fly. If it were possible, someone would already have invented it.

  23. the few that have made positive predictions (Kim’s BEC theory) have been disproved by experiment.
    ***Would you please elaborate? I hadn’t heard that Kim’s BEC theory had been disproven by experiment.

  24. As Albert says science is inductive

    ***Where did Albert say this?

    – something that has happened many times before is considered probable to happen again. No-one can prove this formally.

    ***This is an interesting and fascinating assertion. But it is flat-out wrong, and proof of its wrongness is in the fact that you do not build upon it. It is just an opinion of yours stated as if it is incontrovertible fact.

    Theories (like the stuff that means we expect the sun to rise in thje
    east tomorrow) have such very strong predictive power that we tend to
    give them “effectively proven” status.

    ***Where are you going with this? There’s no generally accepted theory of gravity, nor of HTSC, nor of LENR. The science boys were so enamored with the “effectively proven” status of the Higgs Boson that they fast-tracked experimental results which proved WRONG.

    there is no doubt that the rossi tests that you note exist, and contain
    data which trumps any theory. But without a theory there so very very
    many ways that data could be interpreted.

    ***With all due respect, this statement is hogwash.

    Those ways include:
    experimental error (of many different kinds)

    ***For the results of replications of LENR to be experimental error, the chances are arguably (1/3)^14720. Many, many, many, many many many orders of magnitude away from impossible. Off by 4500 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

    https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg79674.html

    deceit (of many different kinds)
    ***Well, then, ok. Good luck with your incredibly expanded conspiracy theories, which have zero to do with the necessity of a theory being in place. Do you accuse all of the HTSC researchers of deceit, just because they don’t have a theory in place? No, I didn’t think so.

    and so on.
    ***Horse manure.

    1. Yeah, but…

      Maybe the semantics of “theory” are getting in the way. Maybe “theory” just means “really good model of how it behaves” instead of “exactly description of how it actually works”.

      We don’t have a “theory” of gravity in the sense of understanding how “it actually works”. But then we don’t have a theory of how cause and effect “actually works”.

      What we do have is a “really good model” of how gravity *behaves*.

      In that language, we don’t have a good model at all of how LENR behaves.

      So, if Science and Nature say that “science” requires a really good predictive model, as well as replicatable experimental results, that’s their privilege.

      Kim Stanley Robinson gives a really good description of the process of science in his novel “Antarctica”. To paraphrase (if I have this correctly), a lot of what science (and thus what Science and Nature) is trying to do is to pin stuff down so other stuff can be built on top of it.

      In that light the view of Science and Nature is that “we publish the stuff that has been incontrovertibly determined to be reliable; you may go invest your extremely valuable research dollars based on this stuff.”

      Which is a fairly important function, considering how many members of the U.S. Congress would like to mandate the teaching of Intelligent Design to six year olds.

      1. What we do have is a “really good model” of how gravity *behaves*.
        ***Exactly. We have a “law” of gravity, but not a theory. A “law” in science is simply a mathematically rigorous description of behavior.

        So what we have almost in place is 14,700 known replications (law) of anomalous behavior, with no generally accepted theory in place. The state of HTSC is almost exactly the same, but HTSC does not have entrenched enemies who are paid to not see the results. Like with Galileo, the priests of the day refuse to look through the telescope.

  25. I think my understanding of the peer review process is quite realistic. You are certainly aware of Schekman’s criticism of the top tier journals and its negative impact on scientific research.

    The LENR anomaly has been reported upon in 100s of peer reviewed papers and yet funding decisions are significantly influenced by the likelyhood of research papers getting published in top tier journals. Career paths for scientists are obviously influenced by the available funding for certains fields of research. And the top tier journals can select at their own discretion what they accept for peer review.

    It is naive to believe that the only metric for getting published in the top tier journals is the quality of the paper. It is more about fashion. Yet too often I have heard scientists says that they believe something only when it gets published in Nature or Science. That is where this whole peer review system is failing.

    1. People are not perfect. Scientists judgement of what is good/bad etc is very imperfect. So any system which improves quality will make mistakes. and some people will see these mistakes (possibly be on the wrong end of them) and complain.

      There are tens of thousands of journals, 100s of high quality ones. The many LENR papers from Holmlid I posted show that good work can be published in any number of different decent journals, and that there is in principle no prejudice against LENR.

      Yes there will be prejudice – people are human. Scientific papers in any area get turned down because of the personal quirks of the referes. That is Ok – if they are good they will be published elsewhere, with different referees. If they have real faults, those can be mended and the paper submitted for republication. Frankly there are very few papers that get through into a journal without significant calls for improvement first.

      The merit of the system is its catholicism. There is no central guiding hand, and individual editors will have their own ideas, as well individual referees. Quality wins out in the end.

      You also mistake the nature of scientific progress. No new theory is “believed”. It is first proposed, it makes predictions, those are compared with new evidence. Theories that are highly predictive get a high weight of probability.

      LENR has not yet got to the stage of being a theory that makes testable and falsifiable predictions, which is why most scientists will say they don’t see much evidence for it.

      Anomalies happen. Easily. Proving that an anomaly could not be something boring like mistake, unexpected error source, or even deliberate distortion takes a lot of effort. Only a very few of the LENR researchers make this effort. The LENR companies it seems never do this. Each demo they have is completely different, or is identical to the old with the same potential errors no more investigated.

      MFMP are the only people I know who stick with one experiment collecting results, adding instrumentation and control, testing error mechanisms, in an attempt to see whether an anomaly is LENR or something else. And publish their data so that others can critique it and suggest error mechanisms.

      You can see from their work that this process is needed, errors are common, almost inevitable.

      I guess you may say the above arguments are those which pseudo-skeptics make. In which case I’ll shut up, you have heard them before. But I hope you will help me with the following. Tell me, where other than from MFMP can I find repeated incremental calibration, hypothesising over calibration anomalies, use of different controls, checking of active vs control anomalies, etc, all on the same experiment to drill down and differentiate between error and reality?

      I’d be interested in which of these three things you, and others here, think:

      (1) All this stuff is in fact done by other researchers having positive results but not showing it, you accept this on authority.

      (2) All this stuff is done by other researchers and published – I’m just not looking (in which case point me to good examples of it, I’d be interested).

      (3) This level of integrity is not needed. There is enough evidence without it. In this case you might want to take MFMP as a counterexample. They have been replicating what they think are the best experiments and getting null results – in many cases finding the precise error mechanisms that led to the positives.

      There are other people, less well known, good experimentalists, doing replications like MFMP. Earthtech, and some other guy that MFMP went to visit whom I now can’t remember. They are not well known because they have not yet found any positive results from replications.

      1. I do not know where you got the impression that I do not understand the nature of scientific progress. Over the years many theories have been proposed, some better than others. Most likely several of them would have made testable predictions. In order to advance those theories and discard the others by providing contradicting evidence you’ll need to secure funding first. Without adequate funding you basically deny scientific progress, or at least slow it down severely.

        You probably know about SKINR. Although we don’t hear much from them, I get the impression that they are working on producing evidence that can lead to better theory proposals.

        Regarding incremental calibrations. If you were aware of the work performed at SRI and NRL you would probably find that they have done all of the things you ask for.

        It should be clear that LENR companies follow their own development path which is not compatible to scientific progress. You should avoid mixing up the two approaches.

        My viewpoint is that there is credible evidence that an anomaly exists and that sufficient funding should be made available to find out what this anomaly is all about and actually get scientific progress.

  26. From Vortex with thanks.
    ———-
    Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion in Huffington Post
    James Bowery
    Sat, 29 Nov 2014 14:37:03 -0800
    My response:
    The article contains a ludicrously understated assessment of the situation:
    “Indeed, several physicists are skeptical of these results precisely
    because they appear to contravene physical law.”
    Here’s reality: Within a mere 5 weeks of the March 1989 press conference by
    Pons and Fleischmann, virtually all physicists joined together in a united
    front that was not only “skeptical” but prepared to destroy the careers of
    anyone who so much as attempted to replicate the work of Pons and
    Fleischmann. This despite the fact that the full experimental protocol had
    yet to be published and despite the fact that when published the
    experimental protocol clearly showed a minimum of 6 weeks preparation were
    required to sufficiently load the Pd with Deuterium.
    ——-
    Read more — http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg99988.html

      1. Thanks this was new to me. And especially the video answer the question of Brillouin COP 6 month ago: “Robert Godes, of Brillouin Energy Corporation discusses the reasons why they have so far achieved only 2x the output as is used at the input, and what multiple is required for commercial success in each of their two technologies”. With McKubre definition of excess power in the Norwegian presentation COP 2.1 is >100% Pxs. That makes sense.

        http://vimeo.com/groups/250451/videos/95828140

  27. This later reaction is a standard expression of disbelief. Comparisons can drawn from other instances of paradigm shift phenomenon. In the end it transforms to pure envy unless the practitioner can modify his assumptions.

  28. I disagree entirely that moderation should facilitate the lack of civility found at Ecat News. If you want to participate in those uncivil discussions, that is the place to go. I come here precisely because moderation keeps the more aggressive and less substantive expressions of “skepticism” on a reasoned path.

    1. “I disagree entirely that moderation should facilitate the lack of civility”

      I never said that. I like moderation to prevent people from behaving boorishly. I don’t understand why the ECN people talk the way they do to each other.

  29. I am excited by one of the comments on this article authored by Gregory Byron Goble · Works at Citywide Dispatch Robert Cheshire.

    It points to the origin of mass as an electromagnetic impedance matching process. The standard modal is incorrect in two important areas.

    From the reference: http://vixra.org/pdf/1408.0109v4.pdf

    “Mass generation via chiral symmetry breaking and the
    Higgs becomes irrelevant for two independent reasons.
    First, in the absence of the weak force there is no need for
    massive gauge bosons. And second, the chiral impedance
    is scale invariant, cannot communicate energy but rather
    only quantum phase, cannot deliver mass.

    Similarly, mass generation in QCD via dynamic chiral
    symmetry breaking is seen to be not possible in light of
    the scale invariance of chiral impedances.

    In the impedance approach the origin of mass is the
    energy in the fields of the coupled modes represented in
    the impedance network and connected by impedance mis-
    matches. The calculated mass of the electron is correct
    at the nine signicant digit limit of experimental accu-
    racy, the muon at a part in one thousand, the pion at two
    parts in ten thousand, and the nucleon at seven parts in
    one hundred thousand[126].”

    This says that there is no Higgs field. The electromagnetic field condenses under the action of quantum EMF impedance to form the mass of the electron, pion, and meson. I have been postulating EMF condensation into particles as an important mechanism in LENR. This quantum impedance idea supports that belief.

    The discovery of the “God particle” has been brought into question recently as a misidentification.

    I believe that when LENR is accepted, the standard model will need a rework to get rid of the Higgs field.

  30. Of course, the sun does not really rise in the east. But maybe that’s nitpicking your argument.

    “The Rossi tests….contain data which trumps any theory.”

    Exactly. The smart people will start to realize that means that we need more, newer theories, or hypotheses, that might explain these “trumping” results. It doesn’t matter whether you call them LENR or something else – that is all a form of linguistic idolatry. What matters is that new ideas are needed to explain the results.

  31. I wonder if you combined titanium hydride (TiH2) and lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4) in a vacuum and stimulated the mixture with heat and intermittent sparks if you would get a reaction. Titanium hydride is explosive, so you would want an oxygen free environment. Or, try mixing the lithium aluminum hydride and titanium hydride with iron dust plus heat and electromagnetic pulses. Just an idea. I would stand back just in case.

    1. The Titanium hydride should be milled to a particle size of between 2 and 5 microns. The temperature of the titanium hydride (TiH2) and lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4) mix should be maintained at 1000C in an air, and water free environment to free all the hydrogen primarily from the LiAlH3..
      Both titanium and zirconium reflect infrared photons almost as good as nickel. So stabilized zirconium hydride might also work well.

      1. Any hints on tungsten?? Irving Langmuir thought he had detected “over-unity” heat during his experiments with tungsten and hydrogen….and discussed it with Niels Bohr by correspondence. Bohr told him it “….was not possible….”, and Langmuir dropped the research.

        Sound familiar????

  32. I just checked out the readership and “shares” of my CNN story on cold fusion at the APEC summit. Wow!

    Signals at the APEC Summit Show Big Changes Ahead

    by Joe Shea Bradenton, Fla. November 12, 2014   A…

    9,071
    VIEWS

    27
    COMMENTS

    787
    SHARES

      1. Thank you Builditnow, your link worked fine, where Joe’s didn’t. That was the second time I read the article and the comments.

      1. Good bad
        Here is an example of how to share a youtube video to facebook
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfKCC_a1fLE
        So basically “sharing” means featuring something you find on the web on your own facebook page or google+ page or any place like a forum for example.

        Today its all made easy for you by just clicking some “share” buttons that are provided with the good stuff that you want everybody to know about.
        If you post a link on “the always open thread” then that can be called “sharing” also.
        ——–
        I have an unused google+ account. Never did any sharing, like you. But now I am tempted to start doing it.

    1. “Through co-investments, E.ON already partners with European and American start-ups that are developing promising energy solutions that incorporate technologies of the future.”

      Johannes Teyssen, CEO of E.ON, stated in an interview (I think it was in October 2013), that the best energy sources were “perhaps not yet known.” And a representative of E.ON is member of the Elforsk board which has been responsible for the E-Cat research project…

      1. E.On have also been quietly backing out of nuclear power for about three years. It would be interesting to know what they intend to do with their massive nuclear liabilities in Germany (2 reactors already shut down plus another 4, the last of which must be shut down by 2022) and Sweden (3 reactors). The decommissioning and disposal costs will run into many billions of Euros.

        http://www.eon.com/en/business-areas/power-generation/nuclear/current-information.html

        1. Morning Peter, unfortunately Mr. Cameron is unaware of all these things, so the U.K. will become admired for having more nuclear power stations and waste to deal with in thirty or so years.
          But like Blair we can be sure that when he leaves office he will miraculously become a multi-millionaire very quickly.

          1. Morning George. I don’t know how you could possibly be so cynical about our selfless leaders, who I’m sure only have our very best interests at heart.

            Camerons’s Hinkley C deal seems to be running out of sellotape and string – I just pray that nothing irreversible gets signed before he is kicked out of office next year.

        2. There is also the possibility that Eon just wants to shift the responsibility and costs of the currently ongoing removal of some Eon owned nuclear fission plants into a subsidiary which is easy to give up for insolvency. So the taxpayer can pay for the atomic trash…

          1. Yup – that seems to be the plan. I hope that Swedish and German politicians won’t sleepwalk blindly into the trap. The same pattern is likely to be repeated by all nuclear concerns across the Western world, and there will be plenty of politicians who have been encouraged to look the other way while it takes place, predictably, and in plain sight.

          2. Now the pseudoskeptics have a unique opportunity to demonstrate how convinced of their own opinion they are. They just need to buy up all the ‘poisoned’ shares.

        3. The spin-off will be solely responsible for the costs of denuclearization. After the split, shareholders of E.ON will receive a proportionate amount of stock of both the old and the new company. E.ON says that they plan to sell subsequently their own share in the spin-off. Who would have guessed?

    2. E.ON looks like a highly developed mature alternative energy dev company, look to hear more from these guys on LENR > E.ON “Now is good time for other European countries to emulate Germany’s commitment to transforming its energy system”.

  33. Really now?

    MFMP’s work (and ongoing) with a replication of Celani’s device (when they were using borosilicate housing like Celani) certainly qualifies. As does that Italian “high school” experiment that was replicated several times (both successfully and unsuccessfully maybe, I’m not as up-to-date on that one). Or Toyota’s replication of Mitsubishi’s work http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/12/07/report-toyota-replicates-mitsubishi-lenr-transmutation-experiment/ . Or the numerous replications of Brillouin’s work that they list on their web site. Or Defkalion’s original replications of the e-cat (before they went off on their own tanget). Or the very recent timeline of a small cross section of replications/new experiments over time listed by McKubre (of which he was part of some of the successful replications) http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/23/mckubre-slides-from-norway-presentation-chronicle-sris-lenr-replications-brillouin-featured/ . Do I really need to go on?

    There’s been a lot of replications by teams following instructions from another team (e.g. ENEA’s publications as well). I guess, like the theories, we need a resource page for people to one stop look up these things, and for recall.

    1. As far as I understand MFMP has not replicated Celani device.
      defkalion does not count, they could not demo any excess power.
      Mckubre has work on many projects, but no one has replicated his work.
      This is the problem with LENR. The experiment is not replicable yet.
      about toyota or mistsubishi, I not sure, they may have done, but they not making a lot of noise.
      Brillouin’s is also a secretive company.
      I you know of a experiment. then publish the protocol

    2. The very first P&F experiments have been replicated many times – in the case of MIT they doctored the results to eliminate the excess heat. Ged, ivanc does not want to learn, like so many. Don’t waste your time.

  34. V1DLLBEC may well be the more viable theory. We just need experiments designed to test it. After all, many body linear BEC is an extension of TBL, and Kim’s work has continued to advance making TBL potentially outdated. But we don’t know more till specifically tested (I am not aware if that has happened yet).

  35. Actually, Kim’s work on BECNF specifically applies to hydrogen-nickle systems as well, he even directly mentions the e-cat in his 2013 paper and shows the conditions for which BECNF would apply. I don’t see where he hasn’t already addressed the points you bring up with the BECNF theory framework. See also in 2011: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/publications/yekim/BECNF-Ni-Hydrogen.pdf

    As an alternative, here’s an interesting theoretical take I just found: http://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0169v1.pdf

    1. OK,

      I am just looking at what you suggest.

      http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/publications/yekim/BECNF-Ni-Hydrogen.pdf

      This newer version of the BEC idea does not really make any new predictions. It has been tweaked to match what (some people think) happens in Ni-H systems. Unfortunately that match is not the theory making new predictions which are subsequently observed, so there is no way the theory is falsifiable on that basis. So I see this modified theory as being much less strong.

      Even so it does not match observations. Cu ash has never to my knowledge been observed from Ni-H reactions (you will remember Rossi’s ash was wrong isotopically to be from the reaction and now is stated by Rossi to be some substituted material given to Kullander who unfortunately did not seem at the time to be aware of the substitution. Alas he is now dead so we will never get his side of this story.

      So my point remains – far from the scientific establishment ignoring LENR many people have tried to find theories that fit the fragmentary evidence and so far none do. That is the scientific establishment being rational, because anomalous results as observed all have other hypotheses (experimental error etc). When you consider how partially results are reported – no-one will want to do experiments with negative anomalous errors – the large number of positives is not surprising. And the evidence that would be a sure sign of nuclear reactions – transmutation, high energy products – does not exist in any significant form. (The evidence that exists at very low levels fits contamination or misinterpretation rather than the predicted byproducts).

      Incidentally, Kim does not in any of his papers address the central issue of high energy products. He notes that they can exist but gives no mechanism for them not existing. It is pretty clear that if LENR is real it is some mechanism that both deals with the Coulomb barrier and spreads the high nuclear product energies over thousands of particles. This “fractionation” is really the most problematic thing, theoretically, and I’d recommend to you Hagelstein’s recent work, 2011 and more recently 2013.

      Let me challenge you: is there any theory that has made substantive predictions only found true after the predictions were made? That is the hallmark of a successful mold-breaking theory.

      1. If you go through the literature, you will find plenty of evidence for transmutations. Regarding the often ‘missing’ radiation, Widom & Larsen claim in this patent application

        http://www.google.com/patents/WO2007030740A2?cl=en

        that gammas can be shielded by SPPs (collective phenomena similar to BECs). I do not know, however, if there are published experimental studies on this effect. It should not be too difficult to place a gamma source behind a LENR device and to observe what comes through. (This has been proposed by Pekka some time ago on JoNP.) Maybe MFMP could try it in case that they get their reactor running.

        1. So, barging into your very productive discussion with only fractional understanding of the details…

          Andreas’ proposal that there should be something for MFMP to test seems to point to a more general opportunity, which is that…

          For all the experiments and results that are mentioned, there appears to be a gap of some kind, either in the quality of the data or the quality of the theory.

          So, just applying general systems analysis, the work (and a nasty lot of it) of the opportunity would be to make a table with the following columns, for the “top 20” LENR protocols:
          1) Phrase or name identifying the experiment / principals etc.
          2) Summarize the major features of the protocol
          3) Summarize the results
          4) Describe any gap in evidence
          5) Describe any gap in theory
          6) Suggestions on what might bridge the gaps

          One approach would be a quick sketch, using Google Docs, shared prudently (and backed up!), and then filling in the details over time.

          Results might be:
          a) possible insight into where evidence and theories overlap
          b) inspiration to those with the means to extend the experiments and theories.

          I know, easier said that done…

    2. I can’t add this to my post below because the wretched site moderation policy vanishes my reply!

      http://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0169v1.pdf

      A comment on your other suggestion. I’m pretty sure this is complete moonshine. It is incompatible with QM and QED, theories which have been astoundingly successful at precise quantitative prediction of a wide variety of phenomena.

      However – I’m not expecting people here to agree with that. Where it falls down in a way anyone can see is that it does not make any new predictions. The old phenomena it claims to fit were all known before the theory was devised. It is awfully easy to make theories that fit around existing evidence. The claim that there are major holes in standard treatments – in other words that it successfully predicts more than standard theories – is just wrong. In any case this theory is highly qualitative, but even the qualitiative ideas have not been followed through to make predictions about when you would see nuclear reactions.

      And it does not address the high energy product issue. So fails to explain LENR observations.

      In the end it is actually LENR observations, not theory, that makes it so hard for most scientists to take LENR seriously.

      1. Ah man, I hate when replies get eaten.

        I confess I only skimmed through that new Ryberg matter hypotgesis one I found, but it seemed an interesting “yet another contender” due to the amount of analysis. I’ll take your evaluation of it.

        As I’ve said, I’m strongly in favor of the BECNF theory, due to its testable predictions and ability to explain the data seen so far for both deuterium and hydrogen systems. WL is another alternatuve, but not one that ever seemed plausible from the data to me.

  36. “there is no doubt that the rossi tests that you note exist, and contain
    data which trumps any theory. But without a theory there so very very
    many ways that data could be interpreted.”

    I wasn’t talking about Rossi, but the larger area of LENR. Again…the FIRST step in scientific proof is experimental replication. “IF” some form of explanation is offered along with the experimental data, at this stage, it best qualifies as a hypothesis. “IF” that hypothesis suggests other experiments that can be run, “IF” those tests are indeed run, and prove to agree with the original hypothesis, then that theoretical explanation advances to the stage of “theory”. LENR has long since passed this point….despite the fact that Nature, Science, many high-energy physicists, etc (and the skeptopaths that post here routinely) say it hasn’t.

    But it is NOT necessary for either the first experiment nor the replication to offer any explanation as to causation. Case in point…..the radioastronomical discovery of the universal microwave background. Neither the original discovery nor its experimental replication suggested a theoretical causation. Despite that, the discoverers of the original experiment were awarded a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

  37. I see plenty of honestly questioning comments. I believe though that Frank may for comments that directly and without support refute or denigrate Rossi’s work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *