Wired UK Covers Latest LENR Developments

David Hambling, who writes for WIRED UK, is one of the few journalists who has given good attention to LENR developments over the years. He has just continued his coverage with a new article titled “The Cold Fusion Race Just Heated Up” in which he covers the Lugano report and the latest experimental report by Alexander Parkhomov.

David Hambling expresses surprise regarding the Lugano report:

Given his keep-’em-waiting approach, few believed Rossi’s repeated assertions over the years that an independent scientific study of the E-Cat really was on the way. Amazingly enough, in October a report appeared authored by, among others, researchers from the University of Uppsala and University of Bologna. Even more astoundingly, it was completely positive.

And even more regarding the work of Parkhomov:

The arguments about the Lugano Report continue, meanwhile there has been an even more surprising development. Prof Alexander Parkhomov of Lomonosov Moscow State University has published a paper describing his successful replication of the E-Cat, based on the available information about it. The paper is in Russian; there is a link and commentary and video in English on E-Cat World. Parkhomov’s results are more modest, but the energy output of his cloned E-Cat claimed to be up to 2.74 times as great as the input.

When David contacted me asking for my thoughts regarding the significance of Parkhomov’s work, I told him what I have written here — that if someone can now replicate Parkhomov’s experiment, I don’t see any rational way that people can continue to deny that Rossi has what he has always claimed to have.

None of this is really new to regular readers here, and I supposed over the years we have become rather blasé about the topic — but as David Hambling here indicates, if all this is real, it really is astonishing, surprising, and astounding if looked at from the perspective of established science, because what is being reported by Rossi and Parkhomov is considered to be impossible. To admit its reality casts doubt on so many scientific and technological assumptions that run extremely deep not only in science, but in economics, politics, education and philosophy.

In many ways mainstream news media outlets act as gatekeepers to what is considered acceptable and true, and because LENR is so hard to swallow they have tended to either ignore or ridicule claims as ‘fantastic’ as Andrea Rossi’s. Even in this article, while taking the topic seriously, David Hambling still maintains a very cautious approach.

When the time comes that the ‘impossible’ is accepted to indeed be real and practical, I think it will make some very big waves, and cause many people to question long-held assumptions not only about the science involved, but also about the trust we put in those considered by many to be the gatekeepers of knowledge and truth.

  • GreenWin
  • Fortyniner

    On the evidence, the US military does seem to be one of the most likely sources of disinformation, illegal pressure, control of research funding, online ridicule etc. as there will be direct channels into the NSA and their puppets at GCHQ in the UK. While I’m sure the nuclear industry would also love to mount similar attacks on CF, I doubt that their lines of ‘influence’ or their resources are quite as effective as those of the US military.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Given that CF would reduce the dependence of armies on fuel supply logistics, the technology should interest armies and not only civilians. But
    having said that, I don’t know of any results that would indicate that it would be possible to weaponise CF, in the sense of building bombs whose yield per mass would exceed the chemical level. Recently someone linked to a video of Chris Busby where such possibility was mentioned (among others), but cold fusion was really a misnomer there because the speculation referred more to a traditional hot fusion type boosting, similar to that used in ordinary nuclear weapons which contain tritium, but without criticality i.e. without nonlinear fission neutron multiplication.

  • jousterusa

    “. . . it really is astonishing, surprising, and astounding if looked at from the perspective of established science, because what is being reported by Rossi and Parkhomov is considered to be impossible. To admit its reality casts doubt on so many scientific and technological assumptions that run extremely deep not only in science, but in economics, politics, education and philosophy.

    “In many ways mainstream news media outlets act as gatekeepers to what is considered acceptable and true, and because LENR is so hard to swallow they have tended to either ignore or ridicule claims. . . .”.

    Truer words were never spoken, Frank. You appreciate the astounding and wonderful advent of effective, practical cold fusion. That Wired UK, a publication for which I have tremendous respect, would go to the mat to publish this hugely unpopular and controversial article in the face of the entire world’s scientific community’s opposiion owes a great deal to one person: You.

    Your work with E-Catworld, as you probably hear quite often these days, took a little-known topic and persistently presented informative, rational, intelligent news that so very slowly brought that topic to the forefront of new energy research. It is an achievement almost as great as Rossi’s, for without E-Catworld, there might never have been enough “underground” support to continue LENR research and bring it to this point. To me, even though you make a lot of editing errors, you deserve a Nobel Prize in Literature, for it has had a lasting and significant impact on humanity’s hope for peace.

    You have single-handedly validated the work of dozens of obscure men and women who toiled in the darkness for years and even decades before you put a well-deserved and profoundly needed spotlight on their work. There can be no greater achivement than to usher into the pages of history one of its greatest advances, and you, personally, have done exactly that. As someone once said, “We who are about to die salute you.” I am facing a second cancer surgery which may or may not save my life, but I can count my time as worthwhile if I, too, have done a small part to advance this cause. Congratulations and Godspeed, Frank!

    • ecatworld

      Thank you for your generous words, Joe. So sorry to hear about your continued health struggles. I really hope that your surgery is a success and that you can continue to join us here for a very long time.

    • GreenWin

      You HAVE made a difference jousterusa — do not doubt it for a minute. Our thoughts are with you; thank you for your unflagging support and good will. Keep posting!

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Joe,
      There’re cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors in Essiac tea.
      I’m sure it doesn’t do anything for cancer (nod, wink) but it tastes great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jojYLUwSjhI

    • Jarea1

      Joe
      be strong please. We all are together with you. Soon, you with the LENR community will see how LENR triumphs in our society.
      We all wish you to recover and to have hope for the future.
      Best wishes

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

      First of all, I guess why it is wired Uk who publish that.
      don’t imagine they have any courage. They are informed. that is insider trade, not journalist courage based on evidence we have.

      second, when you say that LENr challenge physics, it is wrong.
      the main challenge is it challenge physicists .
      it challenge the myth of mainstream science, of theory dominance, of physicist intellectual superiority.

      LENR will probably just add few page on multi-body quantum reactions, like are added by HTSC, semiconductors, laser….

      however LENR will allow books to be reprinted, like Thomas Kuhn and Feyerabend, article to spread like Roland Benabou on groupthink…
      It is an anti-academic bomb. it is an anti-DoE bombe. and anti-peer-review bomb, and anti-97%consensus bomb, and anti-Ivy-League bomb, and anti Natur-Science-Cell bomb …

      the damage to the elite will be huge.
      and science , real science will suffer too as many people will start challenging real good science with popular pseudo-science and fearmongering.

      • Jarea1

        I agree with the challenge to the mainstream science, however could we use this experience to make science method more strong. Could we or somebody with experience think about a control method again mainstream bias?. We have to empower again the evidence in science.
        Is the democratic science the correct way? Or will this method flood science with a load of pseudoscience that will drain all the energy needed? How to decide what is worth to be validated?
        Who control the controllers of science?

        • NT

          The “true scientific evidence” should control science – unlike how MIT and others hid the true evidence of their P & F replications, setting back this beneficial science for all mankind some 25 years. There are some real nasty PTB in this world and LENR is now unmasking them for all to see…

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

            true evidence cannot be separated from bad evidence by a human population.
            everybody can ignore reality and oppose realists. i see that everyday when trying to oppose skeptic. they are opaque to reality.

            this is impossible.
            this explains the books of Feyerabend, and the incommensurability of Thomas Kuhn.

            I only see the solution is practical usage, in markets, but even that can suffer from consensus. reality is not enough to be rich, sadly often you need that people agree with you.

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

          I’m a bit desperate and finally I’m today “agains method” as feyerebend wrote

          freedom of speech is a requirement, and trying to reduce stupidity and delusion is best way to make it a rule enforced by state.

      • Sanjeev

        it challenge physicists

        Well said.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        In my opinion, the reason why LENR was banned from mainstream journals was not peer review, but it was editorial censorship policy. The peer review system (when allowed to work) produces false rejection of good papers and false approvals of bad papers and it has inertia, but on average it alone cannot block an entire domain for years, let alone 25 years. If one just keeps on improving the paper and resubmitting it to different journals, sooner or later one gets lucky so that both reviewers recommend publication. And after the first paper is published, the next ones are easier because one can then refer to the first paper.

        • Fortyniner

          Of course, that rather begs the question of why editorial policy has been so uniform across mainstream media and pop science magazines (Wired excepted) for 25 years.

          • georgehants

            Morning Peter, I have on occasions over three + years asked for a topic page to discuss what needs to be done to free science from the clear corruption and incompetence shown regarding Cold Fusion and many other subjects.
            I have been accused of being anti-science, when it is clear that my motives are not to hurt science but to improve it from the obvious intolerable position that it is in, to put right the faults and crimes that continually lead to unprofessional behaviour in many areas.
            This corruption and incompetence is not just academic but is provably costing lives in many areas.
            I would ask again that a record be shown on these pages, clearly on the topic of what readers believe should be done to put right these horrendous failings in the premier of professions.

            • GreenWin

              As the Queen of Hearts was wont to say, “Off with their heads.” Just kidding George. The perpetrators of the skeptic fraud should be offered the fate of Bruno – or rehabilitation in a school of Open Science.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            To find answer to the questions you raised, I would propose making a poll among (living;-) CF researchers to find out about the nature of the blockade and to learn how uniformly it was implemented and among which journals. One should ask the researchers whether their papers were reviewed at all, and if so, was rejection based on the reviewers’ opinion or the editor’s opinion.

            I find it surprising that CF papers were not snaked in through the kitchen door by first reporting about novel exothermic reactions in metal hydrides (without saying anything about their nature and thus leaving the reader with implicit assumption that they are chemical) and only later, when several such papers are published, report results of similar but longer experiments where their non-chemical nature becomes apparent.

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

              read the book of Beaudette, Excess Heat…

              it explains many facts

              http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35

              this article on Titani&cold fusion gives hint too

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

              the violence agins dissneters is well described here

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

              note that Bockris suffered 3 inquiry for fraud, and had horse manure in his mailbox

              this is terror that enforced the groupthink, plus fear of being rejected by peer review forever, and definded, and fired.

              there is no mystery of what enforced the consensus : TERROR (social, financial, editorial)

              see

              http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/25/greenpeace-activist-calls-for-climate-change-deniers-to-be-beheaded/

              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2934540/What-happens-dare-doubt-Green-prophets-doom.html

              http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-paper-doubts-ipcc-so-whole-journal-gets-terminated/

              and don’t forget that for each case, for the believers, there is good arguments to say they are right… frightening ?

              • Pekka Janhunen

                I and my collaborator faced the groupthink and social pressure 10-15 years ago when we proposed that the geometry of auroral electric potential structures was – lo and behold – different from the standard concept. A prominent professor from a prominent American university came to me at a conference coffee break to tell that we should stop investigating the topic or evil things would happen (i.e., a mafia like threatening). Another person came to tell me after my presentation that I was wrong and when I opened my mouth to say something, he shouted to me “don’t say anything!” and marched away. Some people made loud public negative commenting after my presentation (and sometimes during it), but when I approached them afterwards trying to discuss the matter, they laughed nervously and ran away.
                Despite all this, we were nevertheless able to publish the results in normal refereed journals. Some of the papers were rejected (which is normal), but altogether we published some twenty papers about the topic. No one refuted the papers even afterwards by sending letters to editor.
                Who was right remains in principle unknown, because there haven’t been suitable space missions that could have resolved the question.

                I never got criticism for the E-sail invention and papers, although that one has much larger potential economic consequences than the purely academic question of the shape of auroral potential structures.

                I don’t know the story behind LENR. Is the reason for rejection mainly the who-was-right thing and not the economic implications. Who knows. The important thing is that the system should just obey its own rules, for example that editors should not reject papers summarily, but only after proper refereeing.

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

                  your story is frightenig but common.

                  “If you write anything about Wegener theory, you have a F”

                  http://www.nature.com/news/earth-science-how-plate-tectonics-clicked-1.13655#comment-1032456342

                  “I cannot make an intern work on that subject because it will ruin their future career in science” (an heretical retired professor in geoscience)

                  I have observed from history that the problem is not from any business nor even the militaries (they both watch and would react if something annoyed them).

                  the problem is among scientist, and it is first EGO, then for hot fusion Cash Cow but much less.

              • Fortyniner

                Yes. Irrationality – especially in otherwise seemingly intelligent and responsible people – is always scary. Especially when they act on it in strange ways.

    • hempenearth

      Thoughts and prayers with you and yours jouster

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Professor Chris Busby thinks that this may be a replication of a Russian cold fusion discovery. This one may be a little more difficult to ignore.

    Will the mainstream media find this to be funny?

    See the beginning and then go to 29:30 min. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWua6EjfImI&x-yt-ts=1422579428&x-yt-cl=85114404

  • Oceans2014

    .. pretty much convinced that Mary Yugo is Steven Krivit.

  • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

    I spread this news over a few german forums which cover the topic.

    The patho-sceptics have a replication now, but now they argument that Parkhomov is not reliable because he studied parapsychological phenomenons.

    But I feeling that the resistance is decreaseing now, because their ignorance foundation is crunching.

    • Sanjeev

      The sure sign of pathos is shifting of goal posts.
      I posted this story from Wired on a few Google plus communities, that’s tens of thousands of members, but may be only a few hundred must have seen it and perhaps only 50-60 of them bothered to read the article. But somehow the pathos find it out and start posting negative comments and insults almost immediately with links to other negative sites like poopsci, scienceblogs etc. I had to delete them and disable comments so others at least read it without a prior bias from such comments.

      The “Renewable Energy” community moderator went ahead and deleted my post. So perhaps these people are also terrified of any new energy tech.

      The good part is, there are many +1s and re-shares.

      • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

        Yes, the renewables-community is paradoxically very hard denying LENR. They are very proud of their environment friendly energy.

        • Fortyniner

          And also very dishonest, it would seem.

        • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

          Why generalize on the entire renewables-community?

          People have a kaleidoscope of views, and what is nice is that these views change and are enriched in time, thanks to information.

          Or is a “renewable community” member born as such, with an original sin, or as such permanently labelled?

          Those who radicalize their thinking, however, do prove discouraging…

    • John Littlemist

      Just remind them that also Einstein studied para-psychological phenomenons… 😉

      • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

        Thank you! I didn’t know that!

      • Gerrit

        and Newton studied alchemy 🙂

        • GreenWin

          and Newton studied in “secret” for 20 years. So his fellow scientists wouldn’t kick him out of the Royal Society.

        • Sanjeev

          Tesla was heavily into the unseen side of nature. Bohr advocated the primacy of consciousness over everything. Feynman tried altered states of mind. Tom Campbell came up with a whole new theory of everything exploring non-physical world. This list is very big. You must throw out a lot of science on the basis that giants who advanced it were interested in a subject that was not dogma.

          If someone accuses a scientist of exploring unknown, then he misses the very definition of a scientist. A scientist thrives on unknown. Only pseudo-scientist study whatever is known and is in their comfort zones and are afraid of venturing out and ridicule those who are brave and smart enough to try new things. Unfortunately most of these so called “scientists” working for money are such kind, and media does not really know what science and scientist is.

  • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

    Amazing. Even with Darden, Vaughn, Gates, Parkhomov, Piantelli, Godes, Swartz, Hagelstein, Essen, ELFORSK, Airbus, ENEA, NASA, LENR Cities, Mitsubishi, Toyota and many others… the topic remains all but radioactive in mainstream media.

    Caveated tentative articles that leave out important evidence in favor and trump up circumstantial evidence against (and seek out quotes from Rossi’s arch enemies!) — that are immediately pounced on by annoying ultraskeps in the comments sections. It’s like we’re stuck in 2011.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      So, is it time for a slew of reports from the MSM telling us that hot fusion is just around the corner?
      Once again from “The most dangerous man in America”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB_lO72qiVQ

  • Jarea1

    Thanks wired, thanks David Hambling, your contribution is important!

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    Mary Yugo very busy being shocked at the audacity of the article, trying to deny and shut David up, check out the comments.
    Very soon this and all the other pathoskeptic, possibly self-employed, professional deniers will be out of a job :)))
    LENR will employ many more than them.

  • GreenWin

    The continuing collapse in oil prices indicates more than just supply and demand imbalance.

    “NBC News and every other news source reported that Saudi Prince Alwaleed, chairman of Kingdom Holdings and a nephew of former Kind Abdullah said: “Oil Will Never See $100 Again. Never? Yes, never, as the prince added: “I can assure you that Saudi Arabia is not using the oil price right now to impact the fracking industry in the United States …” http://bit.ly/1JVqp8c

    There is an ongoing transfer of wealth flowing out of oil & petrodollar cartels into consumer pockets. Whether this sell-off was triggered by the October Lugano Report or not matters little. The selloff continues as LENR gains academic and public acceptance. Industry has downloaded the Lugano Report more than 100k times last count — which provides motivation for the dramatic market movement we see.
    The present hiccupping media acceptance of LENR follows an organized release of evidence and commentary designed to infuse public opinion with the transition to LENR. This appears over-cautious IMO – as the sooner industry produces low cost energy, the sooner humanitarian forces deliver safe water, healthcare, housing and food to those in need. Never-the-less, clearly all is moving in the right direction. For which there is much gratitude! 🙂

  • Bernie777

    Frank, congratulations on your part in this media breakthrough.

  • clovis ray

    Great article Frank, this is nice, wired, has some pretty sharp cookies, in their ranks, I personally can not understand, why anyone of normal intelligence, could not see the potential in this story, heck, I was hooked , at first glance.
    if any reporter should like to know about the rossi effect, E-CATWORLD.COM, is the knowlage base for the world, just come and investigate our site, any question will be answered, save one, that being what causes this reaction, there has been many, many theory’s, and it is my belief, personally, that only Dr. Rossi, and I/H knows, and not real sure about that, I personally believe that it a God sent, and at some point the real scientist will say, hey look a new field of physics, and rightly so.

    • giovanniontheweb

      Hi Clovis,to me people is weakened by basic needs, including myself, going out of the fences is about courage, cleverness or despair or all of them together. News bring money, when they are right bring fame and more money, if you have to process news to survive you are intrinsically weak and your opinion is not a reference but an echo.

  • Gerard McEk

    Many of us have said this multiple times with regards to the established academic world and scientists. Their behaviour is not scientific. They shall investigate anomalies and find a theoretical basis for it. All they do now is simply ignore the anomaly and claim that it is impossible because it does not fit in the present theories. How can one thrust this stupidity? They are so convinced about their own knowledge that their ivory tower is now on the brink of destruction. If that falls, what is then left? Who can be thrusted? Their stupidity leaves the academic world in chaos and it will take many years to overcome this.

    • mcloki

      The stupidity is overcome with a working, commercial invention. The old ways of thinking fall quite quickly once it’s out there. “Truth will out”

      • clovis ray

        You left out the word win after will, this is the way a true scientist should be searching for “TRUTH”

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I guess it is rather a result of vanity, motivated by figures of thought like “If there was something new, the experts would have discovered it long since”.

      Here is a German article on an astrophysical issue that exemplifies some facets of this phenomenon:

      http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/43/43912/1.html

      • malkom700

        It is not just the responsibility of the scientific community, because even today we can see that the energy companies and some states have conflicting interests in the same way for LENR and GW topic. The inertia is much higher than would be expected.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Very true and very sad.
          We now spend as much money on global warming as we do for cancer! The BILLIONS per year wasted on studying CO2 and cooking up ways to tax CO2 could well have created a LENR industry!

          What a waste! And LENR will make all the hand waving to receive CO2 grants a moot issue.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Gerard McEk

        The astro-physicists seem to be even in a worse situation as compared to the LENR situation. LENR is proven, but it may be difficult to prove the liquid H2 situation on the sun surface. Quite an interesting reading Andreas, thanks!! I send it also to my son.
        Such a flair, what is shown in a few minutes of video exists in real time for many days. I wonder if this quick projection does perhaps suggest things that are not really the case. Anyway, I am in favour of the French astro-physicist’s theory.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Robitaille’s theory invites to speculations about the question if metallic hydrogen could play a role in LENR. Forming this variety of hydrogen requires typically gigantic pressures, which are easily achieved in the sun’s core, but certainly not in a LENR reactor. However, Rydberg hydrogen – whose role has been considered decisive by several researchers – may develop metallic properties even at low pressure, as the following paper suggests:

          http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-8984/16/39/034/

          This becomes even more interesting if we recall that the presence of an alkali metal apparently boosts LENR – and metallic hydrogen would be indeed nothing more than the ‘zeroth’ alkali metal in the periodic table.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Actually, the problem is most people don’t realize that science is faith based. You have to read and accept someone’s witness and testimony that they saw a bunch of fish one day, or they saw some effect. Because we were not present, then we accept that past witness and testimony based on an act of faith.

      The next factor in this mix of course is because we make an act of faith, then we tend to submit and accept the authority based figures and institutions to accept such witness and testimony.

      And keep in mind that such witness and testimony we accept is past tense. So it is a past historical witness we are to accept or reject on an act of faith.

      The best example is of course the doctor who discovered a cure for ulcers. The medical community had been taught for 50+ years that ulcers are due to food, stress and lifestyle.

      In 1985 the doctor released a paper stating that a cure existed. No one believed him, and he went so far as to infect himself to bring on ulcers and then cured himself!

      It took the medical community about 15 years to accept this witness and testimony of that doctor. Of course finally in 2000 he received the Nobel Prize.

      So I think it important that 90% or more of science is accepted on an act of faith, and thus is faith based. And the general science community thus submits to authority based institutions, and it only when such institutions accept a particular position on science does the flock follow BASED on that authority they accept and an act of faith in that institution.

      People have this idea that science is not based on an act of faith to accept the witness and testimony of others when it fact this is the case. The fact that someone replicated the e-cat is only their testimony, and we have to make an act of faith to accept that replication.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada
      [email protected]

      • Gerard McEk

        I fully agree that one needs to believe those (often peer reviewed) research results. I agree that in Rossi’s case things are a bit less clear, although I believe in the independent tests by the different professors. But given the hundreds and hundreds of other publications of this anomaly, it is totally unthinkable that main stream scientists put their heads in the ground and ignore these documents and dismiss them as unreal and not true. There is too much evidence.
        The only explanation is that that they (the main stream ‘scientists’) are paralysed by fear, fear for their career, because this phenomenon is pseudo-science.

        It were the great institutions (MIT, Caltech, NASA, CERN, etc.) who banned Cold Fusion to pseudo-science and delayed one of the greatest developments in history for more than 25 years. They are to blame for this and they know that. They fear what is coming and maybe know they fight a lost battle. Rossi will bring the impossible energy source on the market and it will generate impossible amounts of energy. How long can they ignore that? How long can the main stream media ignore that? Time will tell.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          For sure I don’t want to sugarcoat this de-railment of science. It is wretched we squandered 25+ years on what amounts to a golden key for our future. So political self interests by those who stood to loose on this issue caused much harm.(i.e.: researches in hot fusion for example). We MUST not forget what occurred here. So no “free pass” to those institutions that put politics and self interest ahead of integrity and honest science.

          However wanted to point out how the process of change works. And there is often many that don’t realize that science is in effect a faith based system in which we accept witness and testimony of others. And we accept such testimony by act of faith. Many attempt to forward the idea that science is not based on such acts of faith – it is but most will not admit as such!

          And yes, history DOES place a black eye on MIT and how they dealt with the P&F discovery.

          However, the waters are parting on this issue. And credit to MIT they do have that 101 course on LENR. To fair, this is 100% based on two professors willing to stick their necks out and offering their personal time as opposed to some official endorsement by MIT). They are hero’s for doing this!

          The last 6 months have been nothing short of spectacular for the LENR movement. I expect this momentum to continue, and 2015 looks to be a great year indeed for LENR.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    It should be emphasized one more time that scientific impact of LERN, which is hided by the expected economical effect, is incredibly BIG. LENR demands reevaluation of modern physics. The crisis of physics was already recognised long time ago (books about crisis in the standard model, string theories and more were written by prominent physicists), but even the search for the solution among academics was not on the table. They could easily and comfortable live with existing theories, having never ending discussions in the close physics community. There was no big need for a reevaluation of existing theories. Media reputation was high enough to get grants and academic positions. Now, with emerging LENR experimental results they are simply forced to change their theories and loose their reputation (first of all inside themselves). And, all these things were catalyzed by Andrea Rossi, by his experimental results in LENR. INCREDIBLE.

    • GreenWin

      Valeriy, you are correct. But do not forget the steadfast group of scientists (e.g. Storms, Josephson, Hagelstein, Mills, McKubre, Miley etc etc) who have stayed the LENR course since Pons & Fleischmann. Without these intrepid pioneers, Dr. Rossi would not have been catalyzed to develop the E-Cat. It has been a remarkable TEAM effort.

      • Mats002

        I second that. Rossi is a big star, no question about it, but he followed in the steps of others before him.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Well, I don’t recall hearing that Rossi would have taken inspiration from others except F&P. Be that as it may, I agree that of course every honest worker in the field is appropriate to be commemorated.

      • Valeriy Tarasov

        Yes, of course we should be grateful to these Pioneers, they created the LENR data base. They have provided necessary ingredients to the LENR kitchen and chef Rossi have discovered a right combination of these components in the right time to create very tasty LENR dish, geting popularity today.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      You touch on a great point – the science community WILL have to address LENR!!

      Most players in LENR do suggest they can use the standard model to explain this. Some tweaking and further refines of the standard model will result from LENR (this is good!)

      Perhaps MORE exciting then LENR is the SOON coming time in which we will DEMAND the physics community explain this effect!

      They can’t ignore it for much longer! The train is coming! Choo-Choo-Choo-choo!

      Not only will I break out the popcorn, but I think cracking the mystery of LENR will result in a HUGE leap forward for the general physics/science community.

      I see the results of the science community having to tackle LENR resulting in nothing but good – it shall be fun to watch as they wipe egg off their faces and get back to real science! And their explains will expand our knowledge and likely enhance the standard physics model in a positive way.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • AstralProjectee

    This is good to hear. Wired has covered Rossi before so hopefully we can trust Wired to a bit ahead of the ball game for other new technologies that may seem impossible right now.