Current Science Article Detailing E-Cat Tests a First in a Peer Reviewed Journal

Thanks to Barbierir for bringing attention to the following:

The article in the Current Science special issue on LENR titled “Lattice-enabled nuclear reactions in the nickel and hydrogen gas system” by David J. Nagel is probably the first article to be published in a widely recognized peer review journal to provide a detailed description of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat invention, and other nickel-hydrogen technologies, such as Piantelli’s NicHenergy and Defkalion Green Technologies.

This is the abstract of the article:

Thousands of lattice-enabled nuclear reaction (LENR) experiments involving electrochemical loading of deuterium into palladium have been conducted and reported in hundreds of papers. But, it appears that the first commercial LENR power generators will employ gas loading of hydrogen onto nickel. This article reviews the scientific base for LENR in the gas-loaded Ni–H system, and some of the tests of pre-commercial prototype generators based on this combination.

Barbierir quotes Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, who on vortex-l explains how these articles were selected for publication:

“Last year, the editors of the section solicited papers from researchers in the field of LENR. These papers went through two reviews, first by the special section editors and then, if the editors decided to forward the paper, by a normal peer reviewer assigned by Current Science”

While personally I think the validity of the E-Cat has been established very well to this point without the blessing of a peer reviewed journal — having information about it, and related technologies, in a peer reviewed journal could be very useful in efforts to try and educate a wider audience about the topic. Some people will not take any scientific claim seriously unless it has appeared in a peer reviewed publication, and this could help garner some new interest and make the whole field of nickel-hydrogen LENR more respectable.

  • psi2u2

    Exactly ;).

  • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

    yes yes yes…

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Now, the good news. You are not blocked, and the ban is only for one year. You could appeal it, discuss that with me if you are interested. Probably not the best idea. You can use the time to become more familiar with Wikipedia policy and practice (try watching WP:ANI for a while, if you can stomach it), and/or you can work on cold fusion on Wikiversity, where your work will be appreciated. (and, of course, we will expect you to *learn*).

  • psi2u2

    Something like that. We have exactly the same problem in that field. The same methods are employed to block progress of understanding and paradigm shift.

  • Gerrit
  • psi2u2

    For like myself unfamiliar with this case, here’s Joe’s wikipedia page:

  • georgehants

    Wes, I don’t understand a word of that.
    I will just write common-sense, such as —
    First find out if it is a genuine effect.
    Second, If any signs are genuine, determine money and labour to invest based on importance to mankind.
    Third, freely publish all work so that the quickest utilisation can be achieved.
    Etc. etc. etc. etc.

  • psi2u2

    I agree completely. But the process gets broken when the conversational quality of the discovery process is foreshortened by censorious dedication to prior beliefs. This is a general pattern, irrespective of discipline.

    • georgehants

      psi2u2, or if the scientists corrupt the Evidence and do not even Research the subject competently to determine it’s correctness or failure.

      • psi2u2


  • georgehants

    Roger so agree, everything starts in childhood, responsibility, care, open-minds etc. etc. all this without crushing the young’s brillient abilities, new-thinking and enthusiasm.
    A big task to achieve this and I think will only be achieved when people start to not accept being told what is best for them (really meaning what is best for those who are telling) and start to judge and think for themselves.
    Good leaders, good pupils = possibly a good World.

  • georgehants

    Hi Roger, so we do not vacuum our carpets because they will only get dirty again?

  • Giuliano Bettini

    The Ocasapiens – Blog – quotes Current Science, and writes:

    the fortnightly Current Science, published by the Indian Academy of Sciences, has a
    special insert non peer-reviewed …… (“Il quindicinale Current Science, pubblicato dall’Accademia indiana delle scienze, ospita un inserto speciale non peer-reviewed ……”).

    Why “non peer-reviewed”??

  • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

    They won’t end up looking stupid actually, because they’ll just say that the evidence only recently became irrefutable (even if thats not actually true).

  • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

    Maryyugo is being paid by someone though, didn’t someone find evidence of that? i do agree with you though, Occams razor says that theres no reason to need someone ‘pulling the strings’ and suppressing CF. it is easily explained via the need for scientists the world over to be on the ‘right’ (read: *majority*, even if it is wrong) side of consensus as to retain credibility.

    • georgehants

      Nicholas, it is interesting to have a debate about why Western science is incompetent etc. and I have asked Admin for that to be a topic many times, but it seems that discussing openly why Cold Fusion is still treated like a case of Ebola in science is not allowed.
      Would you agree that if I an correct “censoring” or you ——
      “it is easily explained via the need for scientists the world over to be
      on the ‘right’ (read: *majority*, even if it is wrong) side of consensus
      as to retain credibility.” ——
      Or many other possibilities, or a combination of many, it needs to change?
      On a Cold Fusion Website where commenters are always reporting the 25 year delay, the Corruption against P&F, etc. and there has never been a Topic page asking, what must be done to never let the Cold Fusion debacle ever happen again in science.
      It has been said to me many times that showing the obvious faults is “anti-science” clearly ridiculous, putting right the faults is the only logical, sensible course as a Fact.

  • clovis ray


  • georgehants

    People on page keep saying “to convince the “skeptopaths” etc. could we start being sensible, nobody cares about this ridiculous minority that has little to no impact on events.
    We are really talking about general scientists, these are the people that most on page are afraid to state are the real skeptopaths and incompetent fools who are stopping the publication of all Cold Fusion Research in the West. Can people please be honest.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      They actually are very vocal, and therefore it is accepted that this is the ‘normal’ view of the scientific community. as a result the wikipedia page on Cold Fusion is dominated by skeptopathic reviewers. Anyone who tries to add material positive to CF, even if well sourced, is considered a POV pusher and ends up getting banned. This is an issue, as WP is the main place people go for knowledge these days.

      • bachcole

        People need to learn that any controversial subject in any encyclopedia is going to be the intellectual equivalent of human excrement.

      • Gerrit

        Don’t worry about the topic ban. I looked through the discussion and it was a very typical procedure. Topic banning somebody on wikipedia project is as easy as sticking opponents in jail in a failed state.

        Be happy that you can now use your time for more constructive work, for instance to edit the ecat world LENR knowledge base.

      • psi2u2

        It is the same in many cutting-edge fields. Wikipedia does not do epistemology very well.

  • Bob Matulis

    Nice summary of Scientific Journals. Current Science is ranked as number 26 in the world.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      in the multidisciplinary section.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    No one wants to be the fool that jumps too soon. For partisans, it is far better to be the fool that jumps too late. That’s understandable; partisans are gatekeepers.

    For a partisan, nothing short of 1000% certainty will shake them to reconsider their opinion. I get that partisans may dismiss the journal for its “impact”, but the fact is that the previous barrier of “peer reviewed journal” is broken. There is a war of data and opinion, and in every important battle for the past year, advocates of LENR have won.

    For honest observers, whether they are yet become LENR advocates, they are going to watch it more closely. For honest observers, from government and industry, they can’t afford to be the fool that jumps too late.

    • Robyn Wyrick

      And as for “important battles for the past year” it is really every important battle for the past two years. We have two independent, 3rd party reviews; we have the Parkhomov reproduction; Industrial Heat, photos of the new 1MW plant, last year’s NASA LENR conference, and on and on.

      • psi2u2

        Looks that way to me too. Ambiguities remain, but the overall record looks extremely bullish.

        • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

          the tide definitely seems to be going the other direction, and it will only accelerate from here. i would cautiously estimate 2 years, minimum, before widespread recognition (or even widespread controversy) on CF again. This is providing that the rollout of the Rossi 1Mw plant goes smoothly and hits mainstream media hard. to do this it really needs to be well marketed and has to be covered widely as an ‘event’ this is CRUCIAL.

          Currently Industrial heat has a ‘media blackout’ (they don’t even have a website), and are content to let Rossi remain the frontman. This is to their advantage, because they do not want to draw the eyes of scrutiny onto them before they have rock solid evidence of a viable commercial product. They want as few eyes on them as possible, because they don’t want a repeat of the pons/fleischman media disaster to hit before they have solid evidence to back themselves up (which they won’t have till next year).

          Luckily, upon the completion of the 1Mw plant’s testing period, I think that Industrial Heat will be incentivised to stop its current media blackout, and go big or go home. At that point the evidence *NEEDS* to be irrefutable that they have a commercial product, and they’ll want to make the news of this as big as possible to attract investors, customers and new talent.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      The fact is, supporting CF right now is a large risk. it makes you look foolish as an academic and destroys your credibility, science is pretty toxic at the moment, plenty of backstabbing to get rungs on the ladder.
      When CF does finally go mainstream (after commercial products make it impossible to deny), scientists will just say “the evidence has only recently become irrefutable”, and all will be forgiven… there is really no risk (except to humanity in general) in not stepping in favour of CF, quite the opposite.

  • If you show any hardcore sceptic this papers they google statistics about the journal and will find out that it has a very little impact factor.
    So they label it a bullshit journal and don’t attach them any value.

    It’s pathetic! 🙁

    • bachcole

      They can’t “stand back” and look at themselves and see how stupid they are being. There is no self-correction.

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        well considering publication in ‘nature’ or ‘science’, extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence. at the beginning of the Pons/Fleischman debacle 1989-90, extraordinary evidence did not exist.
        No one at the higher ups in those journals has yet realised that extraordinary evidence DOES now exist. Perhaps this publication will help them on the road to that realisation.

    • GreenWin

      Exactly like the consensus science response to Copernicus. “What? the Earth orbits the Sun??? Impossible!”

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        its actually more comparable to Alfred Wagner and Continental Drift. In pretty much every way. Wagner came to the right conclusion, for the right reasons, with the right evidence, but was the wrong kind of scientist, a meteorologist rather than geologist (electrochemist rather than physicist), and had the wrong explanation (no theory).
        Initial consensus went against him and he never regained credibility until after he died when people mapped the ocean floor and the evidence became irrefutable and the theory obvious.

        • Zizzle

          Very good analogy, one of many that can be made from scientific history.

          The principle difference between LENR and the theory of continental drift is that the physics of continental drift were only dubious in scale (convection in the mantle), not in nature (like LENR).

    • Warthog

      And you’re surprised??? Unless and until it appears in either “Science” or “Nature”, any positive publication (even peer-reviewed) will be either ignored or denigrated. They did the same with several papers that appeared in “NaturWissenschaften” (sp?), the German equivalent of “Nature”.

      I had this exact tactic used by a skeptopath I was arguing with at another website.

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        yes… but Nature and science aren’t going to pay attention until it starts getting published in other journals. For example the New York times often gets topics from other smaller newspapers. A similar thing could happen with these papers if they can get some publicity… I haven’t seen any news on them yet however.

    • Zizzle

      From my cursory search, Current Science is the foremost interdisciplinary journal in India based on a 2013 impact factor of 0.935. Other Indian journals were rated between 0.5 and 1.6. Provided, many major western journals have much bigger impact factor values, but the position of Current Science among other Indian journals in this metric says something.

      Impact factors are a topic of debate in journal editing, and their migration from obscurity to the chief quantitative measure has done damage to the peer-review process by providing a set of rules that clever editors can exploit to bolster their journals.

      While a westerner skeptopath might take the easy route and simply claim Current Science’s impact factor is too low to be worthy of note, many of the physicists in India will at least be exposed to the review articles on LENR in this issue. The presentation of these ideas in a reputable manner is the shiniest part of this news.

      I concur with the author of this post that no matter how subtle it may seem, this is a historic sponsorship of LENR in a peer reviewed journal that isn’t CMNS. That a well-read Indian interdisciplinary journal would even consider publishing a special focus issue on the topic is indicative of the sea change that is occurring. In the coming months, I foresee other such journals picking up the topic in other nations. After India, Russia, Norway, possibly CHina, and hopefully Japan. Once Japan picks it up, western journal editors will begin giving it a second thought.

      Note that these review articles were solicited by Current Science. This is a 180 flip from the status quo as it has been.

      Sea change, indeed!

      • psi2u2

        What a superb analysis.

        Having seen several sides of peer review, I can say it is the worst thing conceivable except for not having it. However one wishes to rate the journal’s impact factor, a historic barrier has been broken here.

        Journal “impact” may be an extremely subjective measure over any significant length of time. I have published some things in journals with moderately good impact ratings and many things in journals that aren’t even included in the rankings because they are presently still so obscure, at least to an academic audience. I feel no doubt that in the long run within my field those have as good a chance at being influential for future scholars as those published in the higher ranking journals.

        Almost all significant intellectual movements start small and grow. Imho, if they have a real reason for existence, its unwise to ignore them just because they may be small at the present moment.

        Happy Birthday, LENR.

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        i think that a media storm regarding commercial products will arrive before the academic acceptance of CF percolates to the top of the chain. superb review though.

    • psi2u2

      This is interesting, huh?

      A co-writer and I published in a major English literary journal, on an extremely controversial question in English literary history, but the journal really didn’t quite know what it was doing when it published the paper – or maybe some editors did but those were the ones who lost out when all the dust settled from the fury aroused by our argument.

      The attack which followed came in two forms: first another major journal in the field published a thwack job on us. Then the same journal that had originally published our work, rather than stand by it, printed a rather paltry “critique” of our argument by someone with zero academic standing and then refused our request to respond.

      Each journal suggested we publish a response with the other. If it had been choreographed from the beginning the shut down could not have been more perfect. I understand that in the sciences it is generally not acceptable for a journal to entirely abandon two writers whose work they have originally published. But in the humanities we are more enlightened I guess. Censorship of that sort is ultimately futile.

      But then there’s always the internet……and we wrote our book about it afterward… I think we are still the ones laughing.

  • Barbierir

    The gatekeepers of wikipedia are already trashing the special issue since Current Science is a journal with a low impact factor. Exactly as expected.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Perhaps try asking them what is their minimum allowed impact factor.

      Current Science’s impact factor 0.833 is perhaps lowish, but it’s larger than Acta Astronautica’s (0.816), for example, which is one of the leading journals in space technology and astronautics.

      • bachcole

        And where do these numbers come from.

        And just exactly were do my comments here register.


        Are there any negative numbers? Actually, they may not have any negative numbers, but I am going to bet that there are some negative impacts like free energy sites, homeopathy site, etc.

        • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

          impact factor i believe is a ratio of the papers published to the papers cited. i.e. impact factor of 2 indicates that on average each paper was cited twice.

    • psi2u2

      Ok, this is also apropos. I edit an upstart peer reviewed journal ( In five issues at least three of our articles have been excerpted by major academic publishers, including Gale’s *Shakespearean Criticism*, an annual selection of some of the most important publications on Shakespearean topics over the course of the recent year.

      In 2009 or we established a Wikipedia page for this journal. There was a huge fight, with some traditional editors claiming that the journal was not “notable” — one of wikipedia’s useful but ultimately highly subjective criteria for inclusion. We one that battle, but in the process a number of those who had fought the battle, including me, were suspended as editors (in my case it was only a topic ban). While no one was looking, another member of wikipedia’s well organized “skeptics” faction raised the question of the journal’s “notability,” and in a discussion that included by design no defenders of the journal, the kangeroo wiki court deleted the entry.


  • Ged

    Oh man, going for the Lattice-enabled version rather than low energy for LENR. One of these days we’ll figure out what this acronym stands for.

    • mcloki

      And some guy changed the Nuclear to nanoscale. So Lattice -Enabled Nanoscale Reactions. Doesn’t have too bad a ring to it.

      • bachcole

        I like it. It actually make more sense to me since I don’t know if the reaction is nuclear or something never even imagined. And it will make the opposition pause.

        • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

          it doesn’t so much matter so long as it is defined in the given paper. LENR (however it is defined) is the go-to name it seems.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    He should have looked up the number of Ni and Pd isotopes more carefully (cf. p. 646):

  • Robyn Wyrick
    • Robyn Wyrick

      Here is the breakdown of articles and authors:

      Preface | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Srinivasan, M.; Meulenberg, A.

      Cold fusion: comments on the state of scientific proof | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      McKubre, Michael C. H.

      Extensions to physics: what cold fusion teaches | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Meulenberg, A.

      Phonon models for anomalies in condensed matter nuclear science | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Hagelstein, Peter L.; Chaudhary, Irfan U.

      Development status of condensed cluster fusion theory | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Takahashi, Akito

      Model of low energy nuclear reactions in a solid matrix with defects | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Sinha, K. P.

      Selective resonant tunnelling – turning hydrogen-storage material into energetic material | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Liang, C. L.; Dong, Z. M.; Li, X. Z.

      Coherent correlated states of interacting particles – the possible key to paradoxes and features of LENR | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Vysotskii, Vladimir I.; Vysotskyy, Mykhaylo V.

      How the explanation of LENR can be made consistent with observed behaviour and natural laws | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Storms, Edmund

      Introduction to the main experimental findings of the LENR field | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Storms, Edmund

      Review of materials science for studying the Fleischmann and Pons effect | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Violante, V.; Castagna, E.; Lecci, S.; Sarto, F.; Sansovini, M.; Torre, A.; La Gatta, A.; Duncan, R.; Hubler, G.; El Boher, A.; Aziz, O.; Pease, D.; Knies, D.; McKubre, M.

      Highly reproducible LENR experiments using dual laser stimulation | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Letts, Dennis

      Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Hubler, G. K.; El-Boher, A.; Azizi, O.; Pease, D.; He, J. H.; Isaacson, W.; Gangopadhyay, S.; Violante, V.

      Progress towards understanding anomalous heat effect in metal deuterides | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Azizi, O.; El-Boher, A.; He, J. H.; Hubler, G. K.; Pease, D.; Isaacson, W.; Violante, V.; Gangopadhyay, S.

      Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Lomax, Abd ul-Rahman

      Observation of radio frequency emissions from electrochemical loading experiments | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Kidwell, D. A.; Dominguez, D. D.; Grabowski, K. S.; DeChiaro Jr, L. F.

      Condensed matter nuclear reactions with metal particles in gases | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Crevens, Dennis; Swartz, Mitchell R.; Ahern, Brian

      Use of CR-39 detectors to determine the branching ratio in Pd/D co-deposition | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Mosier-Boss, P. A.; Forsley, L. P.; Roussetski, A. S.; Lipson, A. G.; Tanzella, F.; Saunin, E. I.; McKubre, M.; Earle, B.; Zhou, D.

      Brief summary of latest experimental results with a mass-flow calorimetry system for anomalous heat effect of nano-composite metals under D(H)-gas charging | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Kitamura, A.; Takahashi, A.; Seto, R.; Fujita, Y.; Taniike, A.; Furuyama, Y.

      Condensed matter nuclear science research status in China | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Dong, Z. M.; Liang, C. L.; Li, X. Z.

      Dry, preloaded NANOR®-type CF/LANR components | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Swartz, Mitchell R.; Verner, Goyle M.; Tolleson, Jeffrey W.; Hagelstein, Peter L.

      Directional X-ray and gamma emission in experiments in condensed matter nuclear science | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Hagelstein, Peter L.

      Observation and investigation of anomalous X-ray and thermal effects of cavitation | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Vysotskii, V. I.; Kornilova, A. A.; Vasilenko, A. O.

      Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project status review | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Valat, Mathieu; Hunt, Ryan; Greenyer, Bob

      Observation of neutrons and tritium in the early BARC cold fusion experiments | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Srinivasan, Mahadeva

      Introduction to isotopic shifts and transmutations observed in LENR experiments | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Srinivasan, Mahadeva

      Transmutation reactions induced by deuterium permeation through nano-structured palladium multilayer thin film | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Iwamura, Yasuhiro; Itoh, Takehiko; Tsuruga, Shigenori

      Biological transmutations | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Biberian, Jean-Paul

      Microbial transmutation of Cs-137 and LENR in growing biological systems | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Vysotskii, V. I.; Kornilova, A. A.

      Energy gains from lattice-enabled nuclear reactions | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Nagel, David J.

      Lattice-enabled nuclear reactions in the nickel and hydrogen gas system | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Nagel, David J.

      Summary report: ‘Introduction to Cold Fusion’ – IAP course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Verner, Gayle; Swartz, Mitchell; Hagelstein, Peter

      Status of cold fusion research in Japan | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Kitamura, Akira

      Condensed matter nuclear reaction products observed in Pd/D co-deposition experiments | 25 February 2015, 108 (04) DjVu | PDF
      Mosier-Boss, P. A.; Forsley, L. P.; Gordon, F. E.; Letts, D.; Cravens, D.; Miles, M. H.; Swartz, M.; Dash, J.; Tanzella, F.; Hagelstein, P.; McKubre, M.; Bao, J.

      • clovis ray

        Thanks, Robyn, that a keeper, all you wanted to know about cold fusion, but was afraid to ask, smile.

  • Dods

    Will this publication rally together to publish the Lugano test report I wonder.

    • GreenWin

      arXiv editors have shown themselves to be complicit in American fear of LENR. That these editors allow themselves to be lumped in with spineless “consensus science” is pathetic. Then again, maybe someone suggested they’d end up like Gene Mallove.

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        Consensus science is horrible, democracy (mob rule) is a terrible way to make decisions. Its why we live (USA, commonwealth and European countries) in a democratic REPUBLIC (rule by law, with laws chosen democratically), rather than true democracy (pure mob rule).