How to Avoid a 1989 Cold Fusion Repeat in 2016

The rise and fall of cold fusion after Pons and Fleischmann introduced it to the world in 1989 has been discussed at length over the years and the details don’t need to be rehearsed here. It was a dramatic process that played out on the world stage which resulted in the lasting impact of driving LENR research underground for decades.

There was great hope and excitement when the news was first broadcast around the world by the at-first enthusiastic media — but within months the excitement turned to dismay and then largely to disgust as influential figures repeatedly trashed Pons and Fleischmann’s work and the two formerly respected scientists were effectively excommunicated from the scientific community.

Anticipation was high after the conclusion of the the 1MW E-Cat plant test — many watchers were hoping for a conclusive report being published and the beginning of a new age of acceptance of cold fusion as a miraculous new energy source. However for many people the news of Andrea Rossi’s lawsuit against Industrial Heat had the effect of throwing a cold wet blanket in their faces, and being left to wonder about what is happening.

Are we experiencing a repeat of 1989? The LENR field had showed signs of emerging from its years in the wilderness, with more people taking it seriously — but with the E-Cat now being called into question, is LENR about be be driven into the deep underground again?

Personally, I don’t think this has to happen. But to avoid this fate some things need to happen. Here are some things that I think could keep the field from drifting again into obscurity (in no particular order)

1. A recipe and instructions for achieving an obvious LENR reaction is released publicly, and people are able to replicate it consistently.

2. A company releasing a LENR product to the market that can be bought and used, demonstrating that LENR is an obviously real effect.

3. Government or university labs publishing reports in prestigious peer-reviewed publications that LENR is a real phenomenon that has the potential to be a practical source of energy.

4. The Fabio Penon report being released, showing clearly that the E-Cat plant was able to run at a very high COP for year.

5. Andrea Rossi demonstrating an E-Cat reactor clearly running in a controlled self-sustain mode at a high COP in a public and convincing way.

6. An E-Cat customer coming forward publicly and confirming that the plant saved them a lot of money in energy costs.

7. A large and well-funded company announcing they are developing LENR products.

There are probably many more things that could happen that would kindle more interest in the field. The point is that in order to get the attention that field needs in order to grow and flourish, public credibility needs to be built.

There will always be interest among some of us in LENR. I believe that there are thousands of people already around the world who are convinced it is a superior energy technology. However, at the moment we are a tiny minority of thinkers, seen by the mainstream as fringe players who are probably out of touch with reality, and therefore easy to be dismissed. In order for LENR to emerge from the fringes something will have to change.

  • Alan Smith

    TELLING LIES – A POPULAR BUSINESS MODEL!

    “The majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.”– Harold Pinter, Nobel Lecture (Literature), 2005

    itworld.com/article/2718456/en…sts-lying-more-than-ever-.

    html bettermarkets.com/blog/its-not…ndal-its-culture-lie-more

    independent.co.uk/news/people/…s-many-lies-10005386.html

    telegraph.co.uk/finance/econom…agen-caught-cheating.html

    putitout.co.uk/news/43/stop-the-broadband-con-campaign-site

    • GreenWin

      Alan Smith, THANK YOU for this brilliant quote from a great playwright! The tapestry has evolved of late – it is woven not by a textile loom, but by a deeply misanthropic computer simulation. Lacking most in understanding human compassion.

  • Warthog

    “When you say an
    expert electrochemist should be able to do it that is erxactly what I am
    saying.

    Uh, no….that may be what you meant, but it is not what you “said”.

    “It is because the basic phenomenon has not turned out to be solid enough to push forward with”

    Again, no. That hasn’t happened because not enough fundamental research has been funded for it to happen.

    Compare the numbers of people working on and budgets spent on “hot fusion” to that spent on LENR. Thousands of people and billions of dollars to maybe a few dozen and probably well less than $50MM of research budget.

    “..if he is a researcher then he is one whose every action over his whole working lifetime just happens to look like the activity of a con man. I’m amazed that
    people don’t get this but I guess that cognitive dissonance accounts for a lot.

    LOL…and once again, every thought in your post is right out of the skeptopath script. I’ve taken the trouble to read the government research reports on that of his work that was federal grant funded, and there is NO evidence of fraud of any sort. And his conviction in Italy involved financial fraud….not scientific. When he emigrated to the US, he licensed his “waste to oil” tech to an American firm, who commercialized it, and which made him wealthy enough to privately fund all his original LENR work. Where’s the fraud??

  • Zephir

    /* My naive view is that, so far, patent issues (very valid ones) have
    forbidden a repetition of the experiments by the scientific community
    because incomplete details were provided. Shall we agree on this
    starting point? */
    Nope, even the very first cold fusion attempts of Panneth and Petters from 1926 were not attempted to replicate so far – not to say about later articles.

  • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

    This is the IH inside guy working the complete anti-lenr agenda. Compared to him MY, GW and Krivit looks like saints. His name is Fred Zoepfl and he is angry.
    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/meet-fred-zoepfl-the-secret-weapon-of-ihapco-or-a-physisist-malfunctioning/

  • Alan DeAngelis

    OK, this is way off topic. But it is Memorial Day weekend and
    maybe we can think of the Dauntless and its pilot in the first part of this video (1:00 min) as a metaphor for the E-Cat and Rossi.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDPyvyt-MQ

  • Zephir

    /* A runaway reaction like this would definitely qualify. So where are the papers? */

    First of all, these journals never publish experimental works without underlying theory, at second the accidental runaways don’t count as a reproducible science. At third, the cold fusion research is a taboo in Nature or Science from 1926 http://www.levity.com/alchemy/nelson2_6.html

    • Bruce__H

      First of all these journals do indeed publish experimental works without underlying theory. I can think of lots of them. Why do you think they don’t?

      Second, runaway reactions do count as reproducible science if they are reproducible. That is my whole point.

      Third, the link you provide doesn’t say anything about cold fusion, a taboo, or the journals Nature or Science (except to cite them as publications in which papers did indeed appear). In general, prestigious mainline journals would rather publish a surprising empirical result than a paper about theory.

      Finally, is there a peer reviewed paper describing Dr Levi’s experiences? I hope so. I expect, however, that what you are citing is yet another second or third hand account of something that may or may not have happened sometime somewhere. Amazing tales! But not science..

  • Zephir

    /* So if you are trying to create a picture of scientists ignoring cold
    fusion because it conflicts with established funding for other energy
    sources you are going down the wrong path. Scientists are dubious about
    cold fusion because of the poor track record of empirical results.
    Simple.*/

    Not at all, the pluralistic ignorance can be measured as the delay between first announcement of results and the first published attempt for their subsequent verification and after then my socioeconomical theory of pluralistic ignorance works perfectly.

    For example the cold fusion at palladium has been attempted to replicate by mainstream physics rather soon, whereas the nickel fusion still waits for its replication (despite both types of fusion were anounced in nearly the same period).

    Why is it so? Because the cold fusion could bring money into physical community like any other new area of research and the palladium is sufficiently rare for not to have practical importance and adverse impact to another areas of research. But any progress in nickel based fusion would immediately threat the jobs in competing research, because nickel is acessible and cheap. The scientists aren’t so stupid as they look at the first sight.

    • Bruce__H

      I know some scientists who worked with palladium-deuterium systems around the time of Pons and Fleischman. They are nerds and geeks. They have no concept of or feeling for how palladium or nickel factors in to world economics. They just want to make world beating discovery. Just who do you think are making these loss profit decisions and how are they making them?

      I think you are naive about how research actually goes. Particularly basic research,

  • Zephir

    /* I think you are saying that publicly funded researchers stick to what is mainstream and ignore alternatives …. as a publicly funded researcher, that this is only partly true */

    It works quite reliably at the case of research of cold fusion, room temperature superconductivity, antigravity, overunity and negentropic phenomena, scalar waves, water clusters, psychic phenomena and many similar stuffs. You can find their research nowhere in peer-reviewed journals and the findings published in the rest are never attempted to replicate.

  • Warthog

    Dispassionate scientific skepticism is not and has never been practiced by the physics community with respect to LENR. From day one, said community has labelled Pons and Fleischmann “frauds” and their work “pathological science”. Said community also indulged in an experimental “rush to judgment” with such features as MIT holding a “funeral party” for cold fusion after several negative experiments surfaced (note…NOT published in peer-reviewed journals).

    Your every meme on this thread has come directly out of the pathological skeptics playbook .

    “So can any scientist in the field now take the Pons and Fleischmann method, as replicated by Brockris, and securely and reliably replicate the findings?”

    No, and I wouldn’t expect them to be able to. Electrochemical experiments of any sort are fiendishly difficult…but I would expect an expert electrochemist to be able to do so. And in fact the early successes were all done by expert electrochemists.

    “No they can’t — it just hasn’t turned out that way.

    Actually, they can…..but not using the Pons and Fleischmann approach. The Pd/D2 co-deposition work by the SPAWAR labs works repeatably and has been replicated by other labs.

    “Almost 30 years after the initial report I would have expected the technique to be reliably used
    for something or other … making isotopes for instance if not for energy production.

    See recent work by Toyota and replicated by Mitsubishi (I may have that company order backwards).

    “But we see nothing like this. LENR researchers are still struggling to come up with the basics.”

    Yup, with no significant funding, it is hard to do sophisticated science. And yet work has gotten done..it has just taken longer. Meanwhile, “hot fusion” has sucked up billions of dollars and delivered nothing usable.

    “The field is infested with conspiracy theorists
    and fraud artists.

    Really?? Where are they?? When I read the papers and watch the videos of the ICCF meetings, I don’t see any evidence of such. Quite the opposite. The ONLY actual proven fraud ever committed in the field of LENR was done by the MIT physics department, and documented thoroughly by Eugene Mallove. Of course, I am sure you will dismiss that as “conspiracy theory”.

    “This is why I am suspicious of the whole field even
    though I keep an open mind about its fundamental reality.

    “Keep an open mind……” Nope…not that I can discern from your postings.

  • Zephir

    I’d prefer to say, I’m well informed. Today it’s not quite necessary to be very bright or inventive, we just should keep on mind the previous results and not to forget them fast – or we will remain always at the very beginning of thoughts. The good memory and ability to combine known facts, rather than analytical thinking can be useful at the era of emergent hyperdimensional physics. For deterministically thinking people such a holistic way of thinking may look incoherent, but this is simply how the hyperdimensional objects look-like from our low-dimensional perspective: you should always connect the dots. After all, why do you think the massive bodies are composed of mutually isolated atoms and molecules? They’re just hyperdimensional objects, which we can observe from low-dimensional perspective only.

    http://i.imgur.com/j0chDOj.gif

  • Zephir

    The ignorance of cold fusion is not result of conspiracy but pluralistic ignorance. This is an emergent groupthink effect, not centrally planed or organized action.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance

    Instead of it, any recall of conspiracy should be considered as an appeal to ridicule falacy, the purpose of which is to cover the pluralistic ignorance of mainstream physics community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

    • Bruce__H

      I fail to understand how you picture all this. Particularly the pluralistic ignorance part. You think that the general disparagement of cold fusion in the mainstream scientific community reflects a situation where most individuals scientists privately believe in LENR but officially reject it? That sounds wrong to me.

      I think that most mainstream scientists believe that the evidence base for LENR is lacking. Simple as that.

      • Zephir

        Pluralistic ignorance is based on widespread vicious circle of belief, that it has no meaning to replicate the controversial phenomena, because no successful replications of it exists. If everyone acts in this way, then the replications of cold fusion will really never come, because nobody actually does the replications – which enforces this belief in the eyes of mainstream more and more.

        • Bruce__H

          OK. This makes some sense. The problem of when do you pursue something and when don’t you is always with us. If people see a lack of evidence for something they tend to focus their energies elsewhere. I think it is reasonable and not vicious.

          I still don’t see how the term “pluralistic ignorance” maps on what you have described. The definition of the term contained in the links you posted seems different from the way you are using it.

          • Zephir

            /* If people see a lack of evidence for something they tend to focus their energies elsewhere. I think it is reasonable and not vicious */

            The intensity and obstinacy in which the important findings are dismissed is proportional the amount of grant money in alternative competitive research. The cold fusion gets ignored the most, just because it competes the research of alternative methods of energy production/conversion/transport and storage (from hot fusion and coal plants over solar and wind plants to batteries). All these areas of research will be inflicted with occasional success of cold fusion, so that all researchers have good reason to ignore the cold fusion as a single man. I also consider this socioeconomic stance logical – but it’s also sorta embezzlement of public money dedicated for research, so I don’t consider it ethical.

            Because we – tax payers – don’t pay the researchers for the methods, which would provide theme most safe and reliable income – but for the development of most effective way of energy production and handling possible.

            It’s our money, not the money of researchers.

            • Zephir

              In this article I’m explaining the possible nature of dark photons.

              http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/27/a-fifth-force-of-nature-discovered/#comments

              The dark photons can be understood as a bubbles of negative curvature of space-time. These bubbles exist around very dense particles of matter just because the space-time is already heavily curved there in positive way. This positive curvature opens the way for negative curvature artifacts.

              In this sense the negativism of mainstream science against cold fusion and taboo of its research can be also understood as an emergent effect of huge amount of money, which the energetic research already attracts. This strong attractive force opens the way for strong repulsion of competitive research – analogy of dark matter effects or “fifth force”.

          • Zephir

            /* The definition of the term contained in the links you posted seems different from the way you are using it. */

            It’s just an application of definition of pluralistic ignorance. In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but incorrectly assume that most others accept it, and therefore go along with it.

            Analogously, many mainstream physicists are seriously interested about advances of cold fusion research and they’re watching it closely. But because they do believe, the cold fusion hasn’t been proven with other physicists, they’re follow the stance of the mainstream at public. And this stance is, the cold fusion doesn’t work.

            This is also described as “no one believes (that cold fusion isn’t really working) at private – but everyone thinks that everyone believes (that the cold fusion is really working).” In short, pluralistic ignorance is a bias about a social group, held by a social group itself (in this case the social group of mainstream physicists).

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance

            • Bruce__H

              Why do you think that many mainstream scientists secretly believe cold fusion is true?

              • Zephir

                Because they’re following its events closely at their blogs and elsewhere – even though they don’t penetrate the mainstream press. Usually such a research gets ignored.

                • Bruce__H

                  They don’t believe it is true. They are just interested. Like me. I don’t accept that there is sufficient evidence that LENR as real but it is interesting and, after all, it is an empirical claim. Perhaps at some point someone will make a good case.

                • Zephir

                  /* They are just interested. Like me */

                  After then you don’t understand your own feelings: the people usually don’t give a sh*t about things, which they’re already convinced, they’re BS. Your interest about cold fusion (not to say about participation at the forum like this one) indicates, you’re still considering the possibility of cold fusion existence on background. This is just the controversy, which the pluralistic ignorance is all about.

  • Roland

    4. The Fabio Penon report being released:

    The report is to be entered into evidence, along with an enormous volume of acquired data in support of the report conclusions, under oath as to its veracity. I would rate this as very likely to occur.

    There’s an ancient adage in the legal profession; speed is the friend of truth. Granting IH doesn’t start dragging their heels (the converse adage being that when truth is not your friend delay, delay and delay some more) the report will be in the public record soon enough and the contents will already have been subject to rigorous scrutiny.

    5. Andrea Rossi demonstrating an E-Cat reactor clearly running in a controlled self-sustain mode at a high COP in a public and convincing way.

    I would take this as general, though not particularly subtle, encouragement for Rossi to knock it out of the park in the post client demo, for the interested public, that he proposed recently; I heartily concur as the ship has to leave the dock at some point in time.

    Once the ship leaves the dock it is helpful to the general enterprise if the engine engages with great reliability as this makes everyone feel so much better than failure inevitably does; to that end it’s usually better to be certain than to make the scheduled day and hour in a state of uncertainty.

    The potential audience for this, internet, demo can be expected to be highly diverse.

    The point will be to tick off all the boxes serious players will want ticked off, at this level of initial presentation, so that they are prepared to become engaged in the process of learning more about the economic potential that this technology offers, within the scope of their existing businesses, and how LENR will shape their businesses into the future.

    The moment that the economic realities take hold in the minds of the early movers, a few minutes with a calculator should suffice, an unstoppable movement of monumental import will be underway.

    Scientists will, of course, want to know everything; they will be disappointed. The open minded among them will be intrigued, the experimentally minded will be inspired, the ambitious will redouble their efforts, the willfully obdurate will seek fresh chinks in the armour and the ideologically opposed will, as usual, learn little or nothing.

    In so far as scalability is intrinsic to the Quark’s modular design, and that the available output modalities will interface readily with existing infrastructure, this single seed crystal has the potential to precipitate rapid and sweeping changes effecting economics, geopolitics, the planetary ecology, space exploration and habitation and the prospect of a viable high concept future for humanity.

    So yes, some thoughtfulness about exactly how to present the Quark to the planet is appropriate.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1f/5a/78/1f5a789abb12d6eae1e2e3330f668fb1.jpg

    There may have been another reason for repeatedly trashing Pons and Fleischmann’s work.

    From page 49 of Frank Close’s 1991 book Too Hot to Handle. http://www.amazon.com/Too-Hot-

    “…Tritium is an essential fuel in thermonuclear weapons; it is also a product of dd fusion – the very process that the Utah chemists claimed to be able to make happen inexpensively in a test tube. The US military were already spending vast sums on making tritium for warheads and the reactors that were used for this process had been closed, pending repairs, in 1988 as a result of nervousness about reactor safety following the Chernobyl
    accident. The repair and building new reactors would cost billions of dollars, so when test-tube fusion entered the scene the military took note at once, recognizing the potential of test-tube fusion as a source of much-needed tritium. This sort of application of test-tube fusion also impressed Indian Government scientists who
    decided that western nations would soon classify test-tube fusion as a secret; thus India mounted an immediate test-tube fusion research effort so as to ‘get in on the ground floor’….”

  • Zephir

    One thing is for sure: the finding of cold fusion threats the research jobs, grants and social credit of too many scientists at once for to believe in open support of cold fusion by mainstream physics – no matter how well it was or will get confirmed experimentally.

    Therefore the findings and observations which could gain only scientific importance have no chance for success here and the cold fusion must be commercialized first for to change in paradigm of mainstream physicists thinking.

    • Chapman

      Damn Zephir, between this post and your observations about the casimir effect I am beginning to think you might just be worth listening to. That is not a sideways insult – I am saying that while some of your thoughts are a little “out there” you repeatedly hit on little nuggets of wisdom and insight.

      I am not the ass I may appear to be from some of my frustrated posts. I enjoy reading about “unconventional” theories, as long as they are grounded on sound principles and recorded observations. All great theories start out as speculation and slowly change from possible to probable to likely as more observations support it, and no observations arise to refute it.

      Still, I draw the line at warp drives, reality responding to conscious observation, and honest used car salesman. But I would like to read more on your thoughts regarding anything else.

    • roseland67

      Don’t see it that way, Zephir,
      Just the opposite in fact.
      IF, LENR proves to be what we have been lead to believe it is, (and so far it is not), the possibilities for research would be staggering. In fact, I would imagine that many of the existing physicists would be tasked to LENR development, understanding and exploitation.

      • Zephir

        /* LENR proves to be what we have been lead to believe it is, (and so far it is not), */

        We already have thousands of positive results about LENR http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat

        But the cold fusion research is ignored with mainstream science and it’s maintained mostly be volunteers only. Try to imagine, how the research of Higgs boson, gravitational waves or let say hot fusion would advance, if it would be supported with volunteers only. The practical applications would be hundred years ahead…

        The practical consequence of this ignorance will be, the firsts cold fusion megawatt plants will be based on effect, which is denied by mainstream physics, which routinely confirms the phenomena at the picowatt scale. This is an ignorance in the range of eighteen orders of magnitude!

      • kdk

        However the problem now is that they would get sacked for doing it, not once it’s already accepted.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    I believe that the disclosure of something real at high COP with partial confirmation by independent groups has forever changed the world. To make LENR grow, it clearly needs a reliable product with a big economic advantage. I suspect that the large thermal plant could be one such approach. I think a more rapid deployment of the technology would happen if it was small and affordable by a large number of people.

    I signed up for the small LENR device. Here in Wisconsin, a number of homes are heated by propane — an expensive way to go. Surprisingly, many use in-room, stand-alone propane heaters with CO issues. Accidents happens and people have died. Could a LENR heater fare worse?

    The rise of drones illustrates what happens when technology becomes affordable. First, the big guys (in this case, the military) use it at a cost of millions per drone. Then technology advances, making dense energy sources, lightweight motors with inexpensive drive electronics, and most importantly, inertial navigation and guidance components. BOOM! The market explodes. Government tries to prevent it, but market forces prevail and now small drones cannot be stopped. They have many economic benefits including surveying roads, searching for lost children, photographing from new perspectives, delivering goods and surveying farmer fields. The farm market alone in the US is estimated to be over $US70 Billion.

    Will Rossi prevail? The jury will be shortly out on that. I do like to root for the little guy verses the big corporations, but what will happen in the short term will not change the long term results. I firmly believe that the LENR (not so) secret technology, now out, will prevail.

    • Gerard McEk

      Thomas, you have no idea what LENR will do for drones. If it is true what AR is saying for over a year now, that he is developing a QuarkX-turbine, and it works (F8), then the end of private cars will quickly come to an end and affordable hired drones will fill the air. You just order a drone and within 10 minutes you can enter it. You tell it where to go and off it goes. No streets, no cues straight to you destination, at a speed of a jet plane. Only maybe the last few 100 yards you have to walk, from the public landing place (somewhere on the empty street) to you final desteny.
      I just hope they aren’t allowed to fly everywhere (like around my house ;))

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Gerard I do have an idea what QuarkX would do to the long range flight, but it will take a little time to get the electrical power needed (on the order of 400 watts for a 1KG quad with 10 minutes of flight). It would be cool if the amateur modeling people came up with a jet engine based on LENR. I can remember as a kid seeing “buzz-bomb” type of engines powering U-Control planes. I still remember the cherry red glow of the thrust tube and the echos off the local mountains after the fuel ran out. Pretty impressive.

        And don’t worry about them flying around your house — the government will protect you. At least that portion of the government that doesn’t already know everything about you through your internet connections.

    • cashmemorz

      I’m glad you brought up the CO incidents. If the government is so tied into fossil fuels that it allows CO poisoning then that same government has little or no say in the occasional and short lived gammas and or even short duration neutrons that are SOMETIMES emitted by LENR devices. If it ever came to a court case regarding that point then your example should be pulled into court. However, the government or DOE or other agency could simply use the reasoning that they must update the quality of life by preventing even minor incidences of any kind of radiation as a point of progress for the betterment of the citizenry. It might all come down to which side of the bed the judge got up on the day of decision.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Good point. Don’t forget the tanks of gasoline and diesel fuel sitting like bombs in garages and the myriad gas and petrol pipelines leaking at inopportune times. There are several natural gas explosions a year in Wisconsin.

        • cashmemorz

          One has to ask what is the “potential” harm that “might” come from using a new untried technology. Anything can be imagined, but until something actually happens to harm a significant number of incidences then there is no basis for such “looking for trouble” where there is none. But some are looking for anything that might put a bad skew on the LENR or more likely Rossi effect.

  • psi2u2

    It is hard to believe, isn’t it?

  • psi2u2

    Do you have some inside information that leads you to this confidence or is this your interpretation of the same tea leaves that the rest of us are reading?

  • Warthog

    There is no place in real science for “suspicion”.

    And no, that is not what “did in” the Pons and Fleischmann results, but bad science done by the supposed “negative replicators”, who IGNORED all the rules of science by not waiting for Pons and Fleischmann’s official publication of details to try replications..doing stupid things like trying to measure the P&F cell dimensions using a ruler on a TV screen.

    Yet, because the labs doing that poor science were labelled MIT, Cal Tech (and I forget the big name British lab which was also involved), their “arguments” carried the day, despite their poor experimental work.

    Attempts to replicate the experiments of the “negative replicators” done years later by experienced LENR researchers found and exposed the procedural errors in their work…basically not running long enough the reach the needed level of deuterium loading.

    It should be noted that P & F’s work WAS replicated almost immediately by Bockris, who took the simple step of calling Fleischmann on the phone and getting the real experimental details, and then carrying out his groups work using those details.

  • http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/ Mats Lewan

    Rossi told me so already back in 2011.

  • Zavod

    Ultimately, it is up to the individual observer to remain reasonably skeptical of grandiose claims made by people who fail time and again to deliver. Rossi is one such person.

  • kdk

    He’s the goon responsible for enforcement. Sifferkoll has shown initiative in tracking their connections.

  • roseland67

    Chapman,
    In he end the only thing that can bury LENR
    Is that is doesn’t work.
    If it works as stated and excess heat can be
    Achieved, scaled, safe, cost effective, reliable, repeatable then it doesn’t matter how much excretment you pile on top.

    • Chapman

      Agreed.

      LENR, once fully developed and certified, will create it’s own market, regardless of naysayers and the denials of skeptics. Half the world could well refuse to believe and insist it’s a scam, but that will not prevent the other half from standing in line to buy.

      • Zephir

        The only question is, if this breakthrough will come after some major global conflict, or if we succeed in its implementation without it. We shouldn’t forget, the implementation of nuclear fission also did come after II WWW and the human history repeats in waves. Our time for peaceful implementation of cold fusion is not unlimited.

  • US_Citizen71

    While it is possible that some member of the State department is wasting my tax dollars surfing instead of working, that practice is very frowned upon by the Federal Government and can get you fired as all websites surfed to are recorded and reviewed. Something that many private companies do as well.

    • cashmemorz

      Lots of government time is used up for little of gain or any real need. Those at the top can allot their free time to nefarious acts without oversite

  • Bob Matulis

    #1 will settle things. Lack of reliable replication has been the critics main weapon – and has some legitimacy. If and when a recipe can allow any University to replicate and confirm the reality of LENR will be established.

  • US_Citizen71

    I’m guessing you don’t do any web-hosting. Websites can and do collect information on their visitors computers. The data he is presenting is for a visitor’s computer not a website. The computer was Windows 7 model, the browser was Chrome and the monitor was 1650×1050. The IP address goes back to a block reserved for the State Department.

  • radvar

    If you do some simple lookups on Rossi’s personal history you’ll find he has had some terrible experiences with his attempts at energy innovation. His caution and desire to control is reasonable in the context of that history plus having a goal of being personally responsible for large scale commercial success.

    That said, I’ve come to the view that it ought to be possible for him to figure out how to get his $10M “f-you” money AND publish the full “how to” details, and that for the sake of hundreds of millions of people suffering direly from energy poverty, that’s what he ought to do.

    There’s the argument that he doesn’t trust the market to see it through to full commercialization, and that somehow publishing the full “how to” will result in it being tied up by the mysterious Powers That Be, however, that’s a judgement call I don’t agree with.

    MAYBE he can shepherd LENR to wide commercial distribution by personally driving his Quark-X deal in Europe. However, if that falls apart then my sympathy for his “heroic individual” approach is over.

  • Warthog

    There is nothing “theoretical” about the actions taken by the anti-LENR faction. Large numbers of the incidents are documented in various commentaries over the years.

    I’ve followed LENR since P & F’s first comments, and the dirty politics played by the “hot fusion” community has left me totally disgusted with their actions.

    What WOULD “push things forward” would be for those dirty “political scientists” to actually engage in the use of the real methods of science instead of knee-jerk negativity.

  • Ged

    Uh… no, IH submitted waivers to stay their publication date (actually, each named defendent submitted a waiver). Go look at the docket, tge actual court documents are published there. Rossi simply accepted their waiver instead of challenging it (good thing to do).

  • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

    It is getting worse. Weaver making threats on legal actions and researching Swedish law ….
    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/team-weaver-threatening-sifferkoll-with-legal-actions-due-to-uncovering-connections-and-inconsistencies/

    • psi2u2

      Remarkable.

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

      Copied from my post on Sifferkoll:

      ‘It is very difficult to see any alternative explanation for such a threat. Unless Weaver reads Swedish and has access to Swedish law books, then someone on the Cherokee/APCO/Jones Day team must have contacted a Swedish lawyer to obtain the appropriate legal reference to threaten you with.

      If anyone had any doubts that Weaver is just an unpleasant mouthpiece for Darden and his backers then this bit of nastiness should dispel them.’

      I wonder if Mats has received anything similar?

      • http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/ Mats Lewan

        Nothing. Zero.
        I’m still wondering when someone will knock my door. I happen to be neighbour with the Russian embassy, and not even the Russians have showed any interest.

        • sam

          Mats You must like being we’re it’s hot.
          Russia mocks Sweden over ‘James Bond’ conspiracies
          The Local · 20 May 2016, 16:44
          Russia’s embassy in Stockholm has mocked Sweden for peddling James Bond-style conspiracy theories after an expert suggested Moscow may be behind the collapse of a radio mast.

          Swedes want answers from Russia after Nato warning
          Russian fury at Swedes over occupation series
          Russian spies pose as diplomats in Sweden

          • http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/ Mats Lewan

            The funny thing is that the newsroom of The Local (local news on Sweden produced by expats in Sweden – very good news site!) is located just across the street from the Russian Embassy and from where I live 😉

    • Ged

      This is really odd. One possibility it implies is that IH is terrified of Rossi getting his factory and market share. I doubt they can make good on their threats and are just making noise to try to scare Rossi or his clients to hold him back; but why?

    • kdk

      If you have the money for a sidearm, you might want to get one. Hopefully, you don’t have one of the newer cars that can be remote-controlled like Michael Hastings. Post pics if you get one of them.

      • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

        no car – only bikes … 🙂

    • Gerald

      This must be a joke, if you get sued its the best evidence something is really wrong in our democrazy. You don’t do anything wrong, just giving your opinion based on facts. Wrong or right, I don’t know.

      I stop now, was typing an assay, but your thoughts about europe and de persian empire are spot on.

    • Bob Greenyer

      People do not sue people unless there is meaningful money involved, Rossi is suing IH – and IH will fight because it is over a shed load.

  • DocSiders

    Hagelstein didn’t have the COP to pull off an isolated, totally off the grid self sustaining system. Rossi claims that he does, so let’s see it already.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Not necessary. The NANOR’s he had have very high COP, just small power output.

  • Mats002

    I like the scientistic phenomena approach, LENR is not new in ‘official science’ but goes under other names, see this report from Stanford:

    http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/icfa/fall97/paper2/paper2.pdf

    They get X-Rays of the same kind as MFMP Glowstick 5.2 and the reason can be:

    The well known pinch effect at its lowest threshold or

    Hydrino (they describe it but no naming) or

    Rydberg matter.

    This was 19 years ago.

    • Green&Grinch

      No offense, I don’t believe in official and unofficial science. We all humbly know that we have limited knowledge of the universe, but we ought to admit that we are left with a perfectly working system and no idea of why it works. And this sounds strange to me. I have been following the e-cat since 2009, with honest interest. Yes, you are mentioning interesting theories but I hardly believe that any of them would fully describe what we have been told it’s happening. Great, there has been cases when radiation was produced, but none of them was understood, they were minimal, very unstable, and now everything works perfectly. What are we looking at? What’s this amazing matter? The day they will start providing real information is teh day we will be able to understand what’s the case. So far, we are all trying to fit existing theories on a total lack of info.

      • Zephir

        /* I don’t believe in official and unofficial science */

        The cold fusion never penetrated the peer-reviewed mainstream journals, which just represent the boundary between official and unofficial science. The official science is based on reproduction and verification of experiments – well, and the cold fusion experiments were never attempted to replicate in mainstream journals. Some cold fusion experiments (like the cold fusion at palladium patented by Tangberg 1927 for example) are nearly one century old – and today we still have no attempt for replication in mainstream journals published. So it’s evident, these findings represent a taboo (i.e. cognitive bubble of negative curvature) for mainstream science.

        • Green&Grinch

          Hold on, my sentence meant that science is divided between official and unofficial. Science is repeatable or it’s not science at all. All this matter about cold fusion/LENR works not accepted by “official science” should be rephrased in cold fusion/LENR not providing repeatable experimental procedures sufficient to convince the reviewer… Here is clearly not the case. The documents provided contain huge obscure areas such as the actual properties of the fuel. Given that I understand all the IP issues related to disclosing such info, I respect Rossi’s approach. I just believe that, so far, this is not science yet.

          • Zephir

            /* Science is repeatable or it’s not science at all. */

            I beg to disagree – in part. The difference is in the assumption, that the phenomena have no meaning to study, until we have no working coherent theory for their research. But many (actually the most) of breakthrough findings in the past were made by accident. But what the mainstream science does today is the systematical ignorance of phenomena, which have no theory developed yet. And at the moment, when these phenomena seem to violate the established theories, then this ignorance overgrows into plain dismissal of their research. Which is indeed bad: our scientists aren’t payed for purposeful confirmation of their pet theories only – on the contrary, they should be focused into their falsification instead according to current Carl Popper’s doctrine of science.

            We should simply admit the fact, that many significant findings were not driven by theory in repeatable way in the past and after then it has a good meaning to study even the phenomena, which cannot be replicated well under current level of understanding – simply because we don’t understand their hidden mechanisms/principles well. We just should continue in their analysis and to find these mechanisms later.