Scientific American: LENR ‘May Have Legit Results’

Scientific American has reprinted the article covering LENR/SunCell written by Steven K. Ritter which was recently published in the American Chemical Society’s Chemical and Engineering News. The only change that I can find is that it has a new title and subtitle:

“Cold Fusion Lives On, with Experiments Creating Energy When None Should Exist; The field, now called low-energy nuclear reactions, may have legit results—or be stubborn junk science”

It’s interesting to me that Scientific American would want to obtain permission from Chemical and Engineering News to republish this since it’s on such a controversial topic. It’s almost like they think something’s going on, but they don’t want yet to go out on a limb to cover it themselves.

80 Replies to “Scientific American: LENR ‘May Have Legit Results’”

    1. Exactly. Why some projects are followed up on and not others depends on mass appeal and inertia. People a funny that way including scientists. Pushing the boundaries in iterative fashion is easy when the next step is not too far down the pipeline. With LENR the end of the pipeline is uncertain.

      1. I think that mainstream science is on average not too conservative, given that they even give some attention to things like EM-drive and have believed in things like supersymmetry and dark energy prematurely. A scientist who gives any thought to EM-drive being possibly real, for example, should logically consider LENR easy as pie to accept (after experimental proof, of course). It doesn’t even manifestly break any conservation laws – almost boring stuff.

        1. To date, unfortunately LENR is only a matter of faith, we do not have a theory, we believe. Also Andrea Rossi promises for February demonstration only, not product. Therefore, position of the scientific community are partially understandable.

          1. No theory is needed for scientific validity. That is proven ONLY by experimental results. I just a few days ago read a science article pointing out that even after all these years, there is still no theory as to how “high temperature” superconductivity works….but there is no doubt that the phenomenon is scientifically “real”.

            And neither does Rossi matter…there are many successful experiments by other researchers showing over unity results, just not as large.

            The “scientific community” has been led around by the nose by a small group of physicists and allies who showed that they were incapable of doing electrochemistry correctly (which is why “their” experiments failed to show results). Other contemporaneous experiments “did” replicate Pons and Fleischmann successfully.

            IMO, the science community has FAILED BADLY in their duties as scientists, and frankly, I am damned ashamed of the poor performance of my profession in this area.

          2. Of course we must not same time forget the powerful forces that are not interested in positive results, for example the fusion research and the coal industry.

          3. It is certainly true that such forces exist, but I don’t get the impression that they are much, if at all, engaged in the effort to stifle LENR. Most of the current effort seems to come from the academic sphere.

          4. Thank you, this to me did not come to mind, as this assumes that are mostly idiots light of the current situation in the world.

        2. “have believed in things like supersymmetry and dark energy”. Science does not accept things according to belief. If something gets accepted it is because it is based on precedent of passing scientific process of speculation, hypothesis, experiment, reviews of the above presented to due process of reviews by peers, criticism by peers, action taken on criticism, redoing experiments, scrutinizing results of experiments, interpretation of results, incorporating updated model of what is happening, rewrite report, resubmit for reviews until there is conclusively something worthwhile to further pursue, or not. But not some vacuous belief.

    2. All the scientific reviews of the “state of the research” done by the DOE have recommended providing sufficient funding to “answer the LENR question” either positively or negatively. No funding has ever been provided. IMO, Trump should task NIST (NOT the DOE) to make the necessary tests, as they have better technology and personnel to make the measurements, and they are “more neutral” than the DOE, which has a vested interest in LENR NOT being real.

  1. If it’s stubborn junk science, it’s setting records for stubbornness.

    That it’s an outlier in that respect just like the excess heat and transmutation it purports, should tickle their curious scientist brains.

    C’mon scientists. Just admit that quantum physics can get very complicated in hydrogen loaded metal lattices roiled by phonons and surrounded by plasma and your minds will be open enough to take a serious look.

    1. LENR is not amenable to the scientific method as it is practiced currently. There are too many hypotheses. With all of the many end products, heat, transmutation,light it baffles the orderly scientific minds who look at what is supposed to be happening in LENR and they just throw up their hands like LOL. Very few are willing to get into the murky area. So it remains in the garages and kitchens of a hardy bunch of individualists.

  2. It’s a shame that magazines calling themself ‘scientific’ do not bother to gather first hand information. Why not talk with Randell Mills and the companies that checked the results to discuss the hydrino’s. Why not talk with Ed Storms, Michael Schwarz, Peter Hagelstein, Robert Godes, Michael McKubre, Prof. Piantelli and so many other good scientist who know what LENR is. These magazines seem to spread hear-say like tabloids. Is that how they think they maintain respect to their readers?

  3. It would then be strange that the rest of the World hasn’t carried the challenge forward with any real commercial success. There are still many areas of science where the US is not the leader, and it would be simplistic to assume other countries only follow where the US leads, or don’t consider worthy of further investigation. It could just be that so far no one can see any money in LENR and are therefore not willing to invest any serious money in it.

    1. Me too. Subscribed for years. Read as much as I could of every issue. Then one day it started looking like Newsweek…the new Newsweek. And running “defense of science” editorials. I tried Nature for a while, however, way too deep.

  4. I think it’s very good sign. Wall of silance is breaking.

    I think we will get a full coverage in SA or Nature in next 6 months.

  5. LINT: conspicuous little specks of anomalous findings, persistently explored by the open minded and curious, but reflexively brushed off by others as a nuisance to the textbook tidy fabric of received scientific canon.

  6. I will repeat my question that seems to annoy some people. (sorry but it is I think a very fair question that needs sensible and not Dogmatic answers)
    Why do the UN not offer Rossi a billion or two for his knowledge (if genuine) and then freely give that knowledge to the World for all scientists entrepreneurs etc. to bring it to all of humanity equally.
    Somebody said it is seven years since Rossi first announced success, think where Cold Fusion would be now if that knowledge had been freely released and Mr. Rossi well rewarded for his work.
    A billion or two is probably the entertainments cost for a week at the UN.
    There are good points below regarding science, media and the establishments incompetence and corruption, would now be a good time to start changing things for the better?

    1. Because socialist countries get all their money from exporting oil. The population of some of them have been subsidized for decades and they have never ever worked or studied, and this technology disrupts their economy and way of life forever.

      1. Manuel, I am not sure of the numbers of socialist to capitalist countries voting at the UN, it would then be helpful to know.
        I do think a good number of capitalist countries are involved in the oil business.

    2. Most scientific “experts” they are likely to ask about cold fusion will advise them that it is impossible and a scam, they will not look any further.

      1. The subject was talked dead. Too many things thrown into a pot (e-cat, hot-cat, x-cat). Just to read the mass of information (post, commentaries, patents, magazines) you need two lives. To understand and filter the right opinion maybe three or more.

    3. Mostly because if they had to collectively decide what to have for lunch they would starve. The UN was designed to be an organization to solve and prevent armed conflicts, they barely are able to do that on occasion. Adopting a new technology with massive black swan possibilities is completely beyond their scope. Unborn children would retire before they could adopt a resolution to explore the possibility of backing such a proposal.

        1. Did you perhaps forget that I am a member of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul??? So yes, I “do” think about people, and am actively working to help them.

          But this isn’t the forum for that discussion…so why keep bringing up exactly the same worn-out argument over and over and over and over???

          1. Many reasons were given georgehants why it is unrealistic, unworkable in the way the world and its institutions are set up. It seams that his view its that it would work if only… (fill in your favorite reason why it isn’t accepted as working). If Industrial heat cannot be convinced then no one else who has done their due diligence will also not be convinced be that the UN or a large company or anyone wanting very air tight indications that it works. It it was that obvious that it works then there would have been no court case, Rossi would have his $100 million and the factories would be all built, the customers would have positive testimonies etc. Since this has not happened maybe Rossi does not have it in as clear cut a way as the market or investors would want.

            So maybe GH is trying to get us to admit that the E-cat is not real.

          2. cash as you and I both know the e-cat could be proven genuine in a week, even to the UN, my point is the early and beneficial release of the technology to all, for the benefit of all.

          3. We should do what is feasible. Otherwise it’s like Don Quixote who was complaining about windmills. When something can’t be done in the manner one wants then a different approach has to be taken. If one keeps getting the same result from trying the same method then it is time to change the method or approach to what is wanted, if one is serious about the goal. No one says the goal is bad. The method isn’t working. Time to try a different way. If a different way is not attempted then it seems that the goal will continue not to be attained.

          4. cash, could not agree more, exactly what I am saying, it seems though, as you can read that not many care or believe that a “method” to improve things is possible or desirable.

          5. Morning Warthog, you seem to be outvoted by the number of replies to my comment.
            It would be interesting to know how you can possibly believe that the effects of Cold Fusion on people, especially the poor and suffering can possible be ” But this isn’t the forum for that discussion”
            It is a Fact that nothing concerning Cold Fusion is of any importance, except it’s possibility to help people and if as you say you care about people I would expect you to be commenting favorable on every attempt to help them.
            You seem to be afraid of something about discussing Cold Fusion helping the poor etc. perhaps you could tell us all what that is.

          6. Ah, but you never discuss “cold fusion” benefiting the poor. You only discuss the same tired old tripe…make it open to the people, and the world will be magically transformed. It won’t.

            The fact was and remains that capitalism is the best system available to increase the wealth available to the poor. The economic experiments have been done and replicated….North Korea vs South, Chile vs. Venezuela, Zimbabwe vs Botswana. This is the scientific evidence available.

            How many more experiments need to be done?? And how many people killed in the process (socialism = 150 million and counting).

          7. I am talking about improving whatever system to improve things for all, you seem to be doing everything you can for that not to happen, your choice, whatever makes you happy, but please do not try to change me into your non-caring let them suffer and die attitude.

          8. Again, as a member of SVDP, “let them suffer and die” is not even remotely descriptive of my position, and in fact diametrically opposite to it. But I have studied what has and has not worked. The very few concrete things you have proposed have already been shown not to work. But when confronted with facts, you do what you have always done…..squirt out a cloud of ink and run.

            As a Brit, you probably have had no exposure to the writings on economics of the Founding Fathers of the US. I suggest you acquaint yourself with them. They were totally opposed to monopolistic capitalism (known today as crony capitalism). But they had no problem with what we in the US call “free enterprise” (i.e. competitive capitalism). They saw as one of the major functions of central government to promote competition and prevent monopolies.

    4. This is the X-Prize approach that I was proposing a long time ago. In my opinion capitalism is a failure in the context of introducing radical new technologies to the marketplace. The SEC’s job is to protect the foreign 1% investors who are not even US Citizens. US citizen intelligentsia can only be offered stock options which are not even protected by the SEC on a federal level. Patents cost $10,000 USD and require a lawyer to file properly and defend and are designed to discourage the small inventor. Even the X-prize concept is flawed by capitalism. The numerous categories of x-prizes that are available require a significant up-front investment by those who submit to them. It all comes down to the capitalist conundrum. It takes a big company and deep pockets to develop this stuff. Big and medium size companies much less capaable of coming up with new innovative technologies. It is time to admit the obvious: communism and the wall fell in 1989. The assumption that capitalism is the best system around to tackle all jobs is a fallacy and a huge mistake. Free market capitalism and new inventions are a bad terrible mix.

      1. Free market capitalism is the best and most successful way to bring a new technology to market. The free market will determine whether a product deserves to be in the market and if so, Capitalism will provide the funding.

        The purpose of patents are twofold. One is to protect the small guy who can’t afford to bring the product to market. This prevents the big boys from stealing his IP without payment. Patents by way of license agreement can also limit who can manufacture and market the product. To many manufacturers is as bad as to few. Dilute the market to much and NO one will manufacture the product. That would be the result of georgehants freely license.

        As an example of a george scheme, The patents on a couple hundred drugs has or will shortly expire. Obsolete Pharma facilities need to be replaced to produce these drugs at the cost of several Billion$ each to meet modern regulations. As no license to manufacture is required, the market may become to diluted to recover costs. Thus No one is willing to risk the investment in new facilities. People may die.

        As to $10,000 USD patent cost. If you live somewhere like New York city, that is only about 3 months rent for a CHEAP efficiency apartment that may or may not allow cooking privileges.

        1. “As to $10,000 USD patent cost…”

          A patent can be had for much less than $10K. It “is” possible (but not easy) to obtain a patent on a completely “do-it-yourself” basis. The USPTO will work with individuals and “small entities” who want to do so.

          Another alternative is to work with a Patent Agent instead of a Patent Lawyer. A Patent Agent focuses completely on the process of getting the patent, working with the patentee and Patent Office. They charge a good bit less than Patent Lawyers. “If” litigation becomes necessary, then you will need a Patent Lawyer. Most Patent Agents have Patent Lawyers that they will recommend in such a case.

          During the time I did “independent inventing”, I got my first patent for about $1500.

      2. You are wrong by one word……the correct and accurate meme is:

        “Crony” (monopolistic) capitalism and new inventions are a bad/terrible mix.”

        “Free Market” (competitive) capitalism is the BEST thing to rapidly bring new inventions to market.

        1. about crony capitalism, a variation, the “honest” version, is mercantilism

          De Soto explains well the difference

          His optimistic position is that Trump will attack mercantilism (crony capitalism, regulated trade agreement, big business friendly state) , not globalization (free market, simple level playing competition).

          in a way USA is not at all free market but full mercantilism…

          agreed that best way to develop a good technology is free market…
          see Uber vs Taxi…
          note that uber is not so “nice” and that he is suffering from competitions (Chauffeur Privé, drivers union)

          1. “…….in a way USA is not at all free market but full mercantilism…”

            The Founding Fathers weren’t fond of “mercantilism” either, since that was one of the biggest reasons for the American Revolution (Boston Tea Party…the original political Tea Party).

            The USA today is mixed with some crony and mercantilist, and some free market companies. The first is found in many (but not all) big multinationals, the second is largely found in small businesses.

    5. The UN would never offer that or any amount on speculative tech. Otherwise they would have thousands of people showing up at their door asking for a handout for their “World Saving TM” technology. Now the UN buying up existing patents on Medicines, Water purifying tech and other technologies and licensing them freely would be a very good thing.

      1. ->”buying up existing patents on Medicines”

        I really mean NO offense, but this is a very simplistic point of view of a more complex issue.

        Those who hold the patents will want full value. Regardless if paid by government, it is ultimately paid for by the people. If you force the holders to settle for less, there will merely be less patents in the future as R&D of new drugs will cease.

        The more complex issue. Hundreds of existing drugs with Patents expired may soon cease being produced. (Over a 150 such drugs are in short supply or unavailable on any given day) Old outdated facilities are being closed down because they can not meet modern regulations.

        New facilities cost Billions of dollars that investors will not build because of no patent protections of these drugs. The risks outweigh the benefits. There is also the issue of some ingredients becoming unavailable. Production costs exceed what customers are willing to pay for them.

        That greed figures into the costs of new drugs coming to market, That big Pharma are dependent on far fewer drug products for profits also comes into play. They simply have to charge more because there is or will be far fewer product to sell.

        That brings us back to Rossi’s technology. Should Rossi give away the technology freely, No one will build it. Without protection, the investment risks are to high. They would wait until someone developed a patentable product which could take decades.

    6. …the General Assembly adopt a $5.4 billion budget for the United Nations for the 2016-2017 biennium.

      So, the UN don’t have that sort of cash…I’ll just assume the “entertainment costs” quip was just being funny. The simple answer is that any country would invest in LENR if they thought it was a viable reliable energy source. The charitable conclusion is then that LENR is not yet ready to produce commercially profitable power sources, if ever.

      1. That’s one of the things that make me sceptical about Rossi and others making similar claims. If he REALLY does have a functioning e-Cat device producing enormous amounts of excess energy, I can not imagine it would be difficult for him to get enormous budgets from just about anywhere(not just governments, but big companies like Apple, Google, etc, everybody would be throwing money at him if this was true). I have said it many times before, but if Rossi really has what he says he has, there should be at least a thousand of the worlds best scientists working exclusively on making the most of this discovery. That Rossi should have the solution to the worlds energy problems all by himself, just working with a couple of other guys, using many years without coming up with a product… it just doesn’t make sense. Still, sometimes things just don’t make sense… so I continue to follow the story and see where it goes.

    7. The reason the UN does not do good things like spend on energy systems is because they are a bunch of left socialites pushing an agenda that destroys the west. They only care about equality of outcome not equality of opportunity and equality of law.

      So if someone is poor, according to these socialists it is not due to their decisions and own responsibility, but because someone else has more money. However those others made better decisions and adopted a better set of values. Socialists don’t like this difference in income and success so they push an ideology that favors equality of outcome, not of opportunity. At the end of the day it is the set of MORAL VALUES that one adopts to create wealth – and they hate this fact!

      I mean a single white mother with children has a poverty rate of 40% in the USA. But a married black family with children has a poverty rate of 7%. So where is all the white privilege for that single white mother? She is poor not because of race or some lie of inequality, but because of her bad decisions in life. Of course there used to be a solution to such poverty – it was called marriage and that is hated by the left and socialists.

      So the UN solution to such poverty is to steal money from those more fortunate and give that to the single mother. They ignore the concept of equality of opportunity and thus propose to take money from those who have such money to make things all equal.

      So the reason why the UN don’t fund LENR is because they don’t care and only care to push their socialist agenda.

      If you want to fix the UN, then you have to tell them to give up their ideology, and then they would cease to have a reason to exist. So it is a logical fallacy to ask how you can get the UN to fund LENR when that’s not their goal and how they think.

      Their ideologies is not creating wealth, but only figuring out ways to TAKE wealth from someone by force (at gunpoint or jail terms if you don’t pay your taxes), and give that money to someone else.

      So there really no way to change the UN on this issue to fund LENR, since if you changed their minds, then the very reason for the UN to exist would cease to exist.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  7. JPR
    November 29, 2016 at 2:36 AM

    Andrea Rossi
    November 29, 2016 at 6:54 AM
    The good standing continues and the problem we had has been perfectly analysed. Going toward Sigma5.
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea Rossi
    November 29, 2016 at 6:52 AM
    Thank you for your insight.
    I think in February we will make a gigantic step forward.
    Warm Regards,

  8. There is reason why NMR was changed to MRI. For public ease, the ‘nuclear’ word in LENR needs to be replaced. Maybe Lattice Induced Energy, though the acronym has unfortunate connotations.

  9. Proletariat doesn’t really exist any more because boring, exhausting work has in many cases disappeared. Human labour and even skill is less relevant in today’s society than it was in the 1800’s. The unequal distribution of wealth problem still remains. I feel, however, that the ideology which addresses it well in the modern context is yet to be born.

    1. However, it is not an ideology of the “right” which continues to assume that if you don’t work you should starve because you are a failure. You can’t robotize everyone’s work and expect them to starve idly. Somehow nothing short of a redefinition of the purpose of life seems called for.

      1. There is a lot of unused and frustrated human talent nowadays. Why not use that talent to implement asteroid mining and colonise the solar system. I mean, in a large scale, so that it employs a massive amount of people. May sound far-fetched, and it is far-fetched, but I’m really lacking better ideas at the moment.

      2. Nobody expects people to starve and the problem isn’t free market capitalism. The problem is economic mismanagement. There is enough necessary work that needs done to keep every able bodied person in the world working for the next 100 years. Then rinse repeat. Without the help of robots, 100 years becomes 200.

        Also, contrary to popular belief, business doesn’t replace people with robots because they want to. They do it to keep their products economically viable. The fast food industry could easily have replaced over 50% of all employees with robots in 1980. A single Bot could easily replace 4 full time employees. At a cost of $30K, it would easily pay for itself in a single year twice over.

        To date they haven’t done that and won’t until wages make their product economically unviable. Not many people would pay $15 for a Big Mac, fries and soft drink.

  10. Bear1145, you seem to have completely missed the point.
    You are saying that is the way things are and nothing can change, thankfully history proves you wrong.

    1. Its not like socialists want everything to be free, that would be communism… socialism is the transition state between finding a new plentiful energy source that will drive down the non-labor marginal costs to zero, and the era where labor’s marginal cost goes down to zero.

      When labor gets replaced by automation and people have no incomes to buy the widgets produced for market, either we have a bifurcation of the population of poor people who can only afford the very basic and the opulent that can afford anything or we socialize capitalism.

      It only takes 3.5% of the population to peacefully protest by blocking economic functioning (simply standing in streets or highways, or going to government or transportation/shipping hubs) to change the direction of the country. Just the automation of the transportation sector will overshoot that 3.5%, then you have the predicted automation of the FIRE sector, IT, warehouse, and so on… this level of technological unemployment has never happened before.

      Thats the choice millenials will have.

      1. At some point, The AI Mainframe asks, Do these ugly bags of water serve a purpose or do they merely consume valuable resources? Choose your words carefully when you answer.

        I doubt people will have Robots doing everything for them, but rather working along side to complete tasks there would not be enough manpower to accomplish otherwise. Keep in mind there is a projected huge manpower shortage just over the horizon. Bots will be required just to maintain society as we know it.

        We’ve heard this all before. 80% of the population struggled to feed the masses. Modern technology gradually changed that and only about 2% of the population feeds us all. All the displaced population merely moved on to new tasks. Who knew that freeing up our time would lead to so many new necessary tasks.

        In the early 80’s, we were told computers and robots would eliminate nearly all jobs within 25 years, Yet requires ever more people to maintain society today. There is no reason to think the future will be any different then in the past.

        If you want something to be concerned with, it should be the ever growing dependence on technology. Imagine an enormous EMP and 100’s of Nuclear plants going into melt down. Of losing access to our knowledge no longer in books. Of not even knowing how to grow and process your food. Life will become very exciting tho short lived.

  11. It seems to me that in Pitcairn, Palmerston and Lasqueti islands the stuff is free and there is not money. But there is almost no stuff at all, anyway. In any case, you promised you are moving there.

  12. ->”in front of US investment offensive in space weapons race”

    It had already failed before then. Seriously. Had communism been successful, such an investment offensive would not have had any impact.

    Thing about Communism, It needs near 100% participation by everyone top to bottom to work. Free market capitalism on the otherhand works with any number that chooses to participate. What you fail to understand that free market capitalism is not a man made concoction. It is nature. It has always existed.

    If you really want everything to be fair and equal, you should build a matrix and plug in. In the real world, someone will always be better or have more then you. People are not equal(never will be) and if we were it probably wouldn’t be a world many would want to live in.

    Seriously. How long could you stand to put up with yourself 7 billion times over.

  13. Many thanks to all that have replied to my comment, it is as always interesting and mostly saddening to see how people on page react to any suggestion of improvement and finding the best system to help those in need.

    1. “…….react to any suggestion of improvement and finding the best system to help those in need.

      The first thing that has to happen is for you to make a suggestion that will actually result in improvement. Unfortunately, your suggestions always turn out to be some facet of socialism, which history has already shown to be unworkable.

      Without capitalism, economic growth either stagnates or reverses.

      Are there things that can be done…..most definitely.

      The US had a gigantic opportunity with the establishment of “Social Security” to take a gigantic step forward by treating the social security fund as a real trust fund. It “could” have been the first “sovereign wealth fund” similar to those later established in Chile and Norway (and, at one time, Alaska), and a gigantic source of capital for national development.

      Instead it became an inter-generational Ponzi scheme which the leftists looted to buy votes.

      It remains to be seen whether the governments of Chile and Norway can resist the temptation to loot their versions of those funds. Alaska seems to have not been able to resist (though that latter is just a general perception on my part, as I have not checked the status lately).

      But again, this isn’t the forum to get into economic might take a clue from oursobubu and pick another spot for those discussions.

  14. This is a surprising turn of events. I almost cancelled my subscription to Scientific American when Michael Shermer wrote his skeptic column, a hatchet job featuring LENR based on extremely outdated information in his inimical sneering manner.

  15. BadgerWI, many thanks for your reply, cheered me up no end and of course you are correct.
    I think it all comes down to,where there is a will there is a way, but sadly we seem a long way from that equal “Star-trek” ideal.


  16. Krivit’s objective view has clearly been compromised in his opinion of Rossi, so I don’t visit his site much, but he is knowledgable about LENR and he does make some good points about weaknesses in the original article. The fact it has just been picked up and copied by Scientific American, without any checks or input, is sadly symptomatic of the new age of Internet news stories.

Leave a Reply

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