The Invisible LENR Revolution

There was a little flash of hope recently that maybe those watching over the Cold Fusion page on Wikipedia were becoming a little more lenient in their treatment of references to Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat. For almost the whole day the following information could be read:

Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat LENR system has recently gained some notice as possibly the first working, replicable LENR system. In 2014 the American private equity firm Cherokee Partners bought the rights to his system for $11 million after a team of European scientists studied the system in operation and confirmed its validity. They set up the company Industrial Heat LLC to explore its market potential. Rossi also provided them with a 1 MW plant which they will operate and test for a year. He also received a US Patent for one of the components of the system (see Patents, below).

There was also a reference to the experiments of Alexander Parkhomov. However, an editor put an end to this visibility by deleting the comment along with the note: “Remove Rossi ballyhooing.” (See the Wikipedia history page for the full tracking of the revisions)

One of the governing tenets of Wikipedia is that information presented there should be covered from a ‘neutral point of view’, which Wikipedia defines thus: “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”

For many people, trusting the neutrality of Wikipedia, it is the place to go to check out if something is legitimate or not. If you do any Google search on a topic, you are very likely to find a reference to a Wikipedia article on the first page (most people look no further), so for many people Google + Wikipedia = Truth. What is not so commonly realized is that what shows up on Wikipedia pages is carefully filtered by the attitudes of the Wikipedia moderators, who make the determination about what count as reliable sources on any topic. Normally, citations from mainstream publications are the only sources of information that are allowed to be cited, which leads to a cloak of invisibility being thrown over much information that is not covered by ‘acceptable’ sources.

The same approach holds fast for other publications. Most professional journalists, editors and writers will avoid mentioning topics that are not approved by established authorities. I read today an article on the Italian edition of the International Business Times which had reported on Rossi’s achievement of obtaining a US Patent. They added this update to their article:

In the comments section of our Facebook page there was noted that this article concerning E-Cat could have the effect of “incense” the work of Andrea Rossi. While thanking the reader for attention that he wanted to dedicate ourselves, we do not think that really what is written above may be some sort of praise the work of Rossi, and even speaking specifically of concern that, despite the grant of the patent, still remain .

The rest of the piece is nothing more than the “cold record” of the events: the grant of the patent, its timing, the description comes from the abstract.

However, to avoid any misunderstanding, we would like to clarify that the granting of the patent USPTO is in no way a guarantee of the validity of the scientific principle (which is still shrouded in mystery) on which the E-Cat should be based .

So any discussion of the E-Cat in polite company has to be done with the utmost caution, lest people might think it is presented in any kind of favorable light. And it’s not just Rossi and the E-Cat — anything connected with cold fusion/LENR gets similar treatment, or is completely ignored. The legacy of the Pons and Fleischmann affair still looms large over the whole field.

So the LENR revolution continues largely invisible. Those who work in the field, and those who follow the topic are very much outsiders — some consider us gullible, foolish, crazy or worse. However, mostly the field is totally unknown; it has been successfully whitewashed out of public awareness by those who hold the keys of knowledge.

However, I don’t think this is going to be a permanent situation. Important work continues, and replication efforts are increasing, as new information is gleaned from patents and other experimenters. I think the signs are very good that the field will break out sooner or later, and finally the cloak will be lifted and many more will be able to recognize that the LENR could be one of the most important discoveries of our age.

  • BillH

    Has anyone considered that the lack of interest by mainstream press and science might actually be a good thing? At least four years have passed now since AR’s first demonstrations of working reactors to the public. There is currently no working system on the market that can be purchased or observed. Even AR would have to agree that progress has been slower than initially predicted.
    Had the press grabbed this story sooner they may we be baying for blood and products by now.

    I’m sure that there are many scientist studying all the information currently available and racking their brains to see a way that LENR can possibly work, since no testable theory has yet come forward we can assume that this is not a trivial matter, and many will prefer to lurk in the shadows.

    The good news is that the commercial aspect of E Cat appears to be gathering pace, or so it seems to me. A patent has been granted and the testing on the 1MW is nearer it’s end than it’s beginning. The absolute best result would be to see at the end of testing that the mysterious customer comes out and says “The new plant worked better than we expected and saved us heaps of money, so we are going to order another four” We can but hope.

  • Axil Axil

    How much progress in LENR will it take for DARPA to show some interest in LENR.

    • bachcole

      I do not know if DARPA is involved. I am pretty certain that they are not going to tell you or anyone else if they are. (:->) And if they are not involved, I guarantee that they will be soon.

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

        it is public, hidden as research on nanotech.

        http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum-static/t-247.html

        Note that Navy interest is in that pool.

        Don’t tell the skeptic Darpa is funding LENr research, they will ask the boss to resign as they try with ENEA.

  • bkrharold

    We have seen this same dynamic at work in support of many interests dear to the collective hearts of powerful people and corporations. They use tactics similar to brain washing, by repeating their message over and over, in the National media. Of course it helps when you own the 6 major media companies, and have great influence over all branches of government. Eventually the message is imprinted on the national psyche, and it becomes accepted “wisdom”. The film “Manufacturing Consent” describes the life and work of Naomi Chomsky, a political activist and intellectual who documented this process. It has been used to sell wars, market poisonous products as being safe and to stifle new drugs and inventions that might threaten the profits of the large corporations. The methods have been perfected, and we are all its helpless victims.

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

      it is well said, but the irony is that today the myth are the opposite.
      safe have became poisonous because of manufacturing of consensus, by brainwashing media…

      exactly like LENr Denial who regularly say they protect the public from pseudoscience, from group delusion…

      my experience is that the one who claim he is fighting against manufactured consensus, and start to be popular, should be watched with as much care as the consensus of the decade before.

      Greenpeace is richer than Monsanto, far more if you think in term of PR costs.
      This is how you can, as Chomsky describe, and as he does, manufacture innocence or guiltiness, safety or toxicity, trust or fear, certainty or doubt.

      declaring the the other camp is disinforming you, is called “meta-disinformation” in information warfare.
      It prevent people to consider argument from the other camp, even if they have good arguments.
      attacking people because they have link with the Evil, they are paid (who cares if it is tiny amount and just for costs), was used by sveriges radio agains Levi…
      there is similar campaign in process in GMO, Climate, Ukraine…
      very efficient.

  • Frechette

    Yes indeed. The book with the title “Other Losses” by Canadian author James Bacque describing the treatment of German POWs in Eisenhower’s camps on the Rhein in April 1945. This was censored repeatedly by Wikipedia when someone attempted to refer to this hushed up Allied war crime. In this case it was crass censorship.