tisdag 9 december 2014

How often does one have to kill the Cat?

Will a new report help to finally close the strange case of the so-called Energy Catalyzer, the E-Cat, of Andrea Rossi?
The E-cat has been around for almost four years now. Claims have been made but were never proven. Promises have been made but were never fulfilled. A report by Levi et al. has been written and heavily criticized in 2013. And instead of answering [1, see also edit below] to the critique and questions raised, new measurements with yet another version of "the" E-cat have been made and a new report, the so called Lugano report by Levi et al., was spread 2014 on the internet [2]. What was "indications" in 2013 was now claimed with certainty [3]. Still, of course, some call for further studies [4].

Use Google and you will find several places on the internet where critical reviews of the current (or any of the previous) claims in the E-Cat story have been published. Here, I just want to mention the recent critique by Christian Schumacher (Part 1 and Part 2) and the excellent comments by Ethan Siegel here and here [5]. 

On this blog I have raised the issue of isotope abundance claimed by Levi et al. [6]. I have commented on Rossis extraordinary capability to, despite his changing and contradictory claims, keep his followers happy. And I have written a bit more broadly about the role of science and critical thinking in relation to this case.

For me as a nuclear physicist the claimed very drastic change of the isotopic abundances alone is a smoking gun. And the the cat is dead. For people more focusing on the electrical side and wondering how things might really be connected the new, very well-written and well-argued report by Per Rutquist is even hotter. The kind of analysis Rutquist delivers is what is called for when discussing the E-Cat, but which is - surprisingly - lacking in the work by Levi et al.

I bet believers will continue to trust in Rossi and continue to find excuses [7] but the many critical points found and raised show that Levi et al. - although they must have been well aware of both the public attendance and scrutinization that their report will receive - have shown rather poor craftsmanship and, again, delivered a report that has too many blind-spots to be taken seriously.

So, well, maybe the Cat is actually a vampire. Certainly sunlight into some still closed boxes would help. But even without sunlight, the report by Rutquist is the wooden stake that really finishes the Cat off.

[Edit 2014-12-09 20:55: And yes, concerning not giving answers: It is noteworthy that two of the authors of the Lugano report, Hanno Essén and Bo Höistad, have been contacted by Rutquist five weeks ago, i.e., November 3. But, he has still not received any answer.]


[1] I do not count this interview on ecatnews.com as an answer were Bo Höistad expresses his opinion about the critiques ...
[2] Financed by e.g. Elforsk. Elforsk also published a strange and pretty low-level report on the LENR here[3] Just read the title "Observations of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel".
[4] See statement by Elforsk here and a critical comment on Elforsks uncritical attitude here.
[5] A brief critical piece has recently been published on Spiegel online (in German).
[6] Or, as Rossi in true marketing spirit likes to refer to the authors: "the professors".
[7] This is all to natural. Read about the mechanism here.

102 kommentarer:

  1. For information in Italian: http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2014/12/10/avanti-il-prossimo/

  2. It is surreal. But as you already stated in your previous post: e-cat has turned into a religion.

    1. question is who is defend a religion.

      Fascinating .

      please make the long list of the conspirators and the incompetent guys who did not do any due diligence.

      and all you have is that LENR is impossible because collective quantum phenomenon involving the nucleons is impossible ....
      because sure physics is settled, much more than game theory, psychology, scientific method, statistics, calorimetry, ...

      you will notice that I mix LENr with E-cat, because if you accept that cold fusion is real and as the science show, replicated massively, then having someone who can make it more reproducible than usually is very common in history...
      it is often long , like is germanium junction or planes, but 25 years to transform an unreliable phenomenon into a predictable device is not exceptional.

      so what you assume, and what people should buy with your theory is that not only E-cat is a fraud, but also are Fleischmann, mcKubre, Bockris, Storms, Miles, Miley, Piantelli,Focardi, takahashi,Preparata, Iwamura, Mizuno, Srinivasan, Biberian, Longchampt, Fralick, Boss, Kidwell,...

      if LENr done by those guys is even 10% real, then E-cat is not an extraordinary claim, but an expected claim to be checked...

      calibration question are to check, but the conspiracies of double clamps and coaxial cables is nothing else ... an extraordinary claim. requiring extraordinary evidences.

    2. Alain: just one question for you. A very simple one. Does your comment have ANYTHING to do with Rutquists findings? Anything? Do you have an explanation for this?

      And if you do post an answer: please let me know if Rutquist is right or not. If the current measurements are right or wrong. And if you say Rutquist is wrong, please let me know why. Please. I want to know!

    3. yes the coaxial cable conspiracy, while they were provided by the testers is what I talk about...
      and all that this report volontarily ignore to cpncentrate on details missing the huge beside...

      this all have to do.

      of course this is inconvenient to refocus the stopry at the good level.
      show that it is just a conspiracy and that to hide that it is so unbelievable, it just concentrate on details.

      that tactic is named "hypercritical method" in french.

      the fact is that E-cat is just an LENr reactor, tested for the 4th time , in line with thousands of LENR experiments.

      the test is not without weakness, but it is funny to see people focus on details defending crazy conspiracies instead of cfocusing on the bad calibration, alone. of course the bad calibration cannot explain the anomaly, especially the power step.

      anyway who cares. engineers and businesmen are on it. the story is done.

      I propose to deliver the Lord kelvin price to all those who explain that human flight is impossible and X-rays are hoax.
      You are nominated.

    4. What about sqrt(3) vs factor 2? The real hard fact? Nothing that you reflect over of course! Because you KNOW ... (talking about religion).

      While you only come with broad accusations and do not manage to come with any real input (facts) I sugest you post your comments elsewhere and not here.

    5. first of all the smplified kirshov 1/2 is probably an error.
      it can also be real if the pulses are not as we imagine.
      it seems from few photography that it is not the 6 pulse, but a 4 pulse and 2 silence... we don't have enough data to know what was those photo.

      you can really propose that the C1/C2 current estimation is erroneous, but concluding it is a conspiracy as you do is missing key facts that are not compatible.

      first of those facts is that it is not realistic to assume a fraud without the full complicity of the testers, as the mains conspirator, Rossi, was not present, and the scientists were free to use any instruments they wanted.

      as I say you can propose it is a conspiracy of a dozen of people, plus the incredible incompetence of dozens of others, in a context wre mindguard like you are very efficient in frightening businessmen and scientists , pushing due diligence requitement at the maximum level.

      as I say, that tactic to take a discrepancy, ignore other much more evident facts, and conclude straight to a conspiracy is well described in hypercritical method.


      this report is not flawless.

      the C1/C2 is probably a simplification, a quick estimation, used just to estimate losses in wires.
      The triac schedule may or may not be the simple 6 pulse you expect.

      you could for example use a 4pulse 2 silence pusle that enforce that only 2 resistors are active, and no pulse overlan any other...

      there is even more complex schedule, and all we have to do is to go back to the solid data.

      a PCE830 preopose power.

      the inverted clamp is not credible, especially if the setup did not change between dummy and active.

      NTC is a much better explanation than conspiracy about apparent resistance change, which may also be impedance change linked to pulse width and schedule change.

      the tactic to transform ignoranbce into certainty of fraud is facinating but typical of hypercritical method.

      I have observed it for 9/11 theories, and really the similarities are huge.
      focus on details, ignoring global facts, ignoring some errors in the details.
      refusing to imagine simple explanations, concluding from missing data...

      as I say initially, this is not so important.
      the reality is that LENr is assumed impossible, since 1989, and that justify that any dissenting evidence is assumed to be a fraud, without any limit to the credibility of those theories.

      I call for all readers to put the facts in perspective from 1989 to now, with E-cat as just a tiny episode...

      I state that the theory of LENr as unreal is "extraordinary" and ther not even normal evidence are proposed.

      As Beaudette explained, not the least artifact was proposed to explain 1989 resut, even less for later results.

      E-cat is more dubious as it is business, but now I call for reader to be serious and stop playing the UFO-conspirationist on that serious subject.

      now we know that inverted clamp is ruled out by testers, that Rossi did not took the ashes nor fuel himself...

      question is about the COP of the E-cat... 3.6 as said, much less because of emissivity errors... much more because of SSM... this is open.

      imagining that a fraudster was not spotted by Cherokee fund team, then not by swedish and Italian physicist from different universities, while the device were let alone with testers, with freedom to use any instruments, with many warning on the possibility of fraud, is...
      that alone rule-out conspiracy theories, except the global international conspiracy.

    6. Maybe you have not read Rutquist or maybe you do not understand it. Certainly you do not understand the problem here. And I don't know why you come back with talking about "conspiracies"). The whole Cat story would need only one fraudster to be explained ...

      The claim of a current ratio of 2 cannot be true if the coupling is as shown in fig.4. It cannot be true FOR ANY TYPE of current. So even if it is not a sin-wave but (despite the fact that it is supposed to come from a usual 3-phase power outlet in the wall) the ration can NEVER be larger than sqrt(3) (see Appendix in Rutquists papper).

      So even if you time and again try to talk your way out of it, the simple and unavoidable conclusion is: the report has serious flaws and the authors did not do the proper job one might expect from professionals that present (after yet another year of work) their second (!) report on the Cat ...

      Concerning the conclusions we draw from that fact: let's agree that we disagree.

    7. first of all i agree that probably tjis C1/C2 factor 2 is probably an error in a minor part of the report, dedicated to show the losses were negligible.

      anyway it is not impossible, assuming you don't assume too much ... and that tactic to assume something uncertain but plogic then joke the result is at the core of hypercritical method.

      the current is said to be "average "... not very precise. it may mean average of absolute value, average of RMS over long period, of average with the eye (often more like middle of range, or median)...

      if it is average of abslolute value, there is a simple method to do that :
      have pulse from one phase to one another, while the third is always isolated.

      by the way, the RMS C1/C2 ration follow not SQRT(3) but SQRT(2), because it is independent pulses

      anyway the most probable is simply an error in the writing on a minor question.

      beside that your theory is impossible, and much more impossible than NTC or a stupid imprecision in a report.

      you theory imply a conspiracy,and the puny detail that is noticed have to be put in perspective with all what is required to justufy the conspiracy theory.

      the "extraordinary characteristic" of E-cat have also to be put in perspective with LENR science massive replication.
      If LENr is real, E-cat is not extraordinary, so forget extraordinary claims of conspiracy.
      and if LENR is false, this imply a huge conspiracy that is above 9/11 theories by two order of magnitude (numbers of people involved and duration of the involvement).

      Occam razor : it works, people make puny mistakes, and groups fall into groupthink easily.

    8. If you don't understand why a schedule of the triac may cause independent pulses from left and right, result in a sqrt(2) in the RMS of current sum, and a 2x on average, and 1x on peak...
      then one can understand that the RQ report looks credible.

      sqrt(3) is for balanced 3phase.
      it is simply the rule that the power on the 3 wires add, and r=that RMS current/voltage is proportional the sqrt of the power

      basically there is oversimplification in that approach.

      the only things solid is the power that measured the PCE830.

      even the apparent resistance may be an illusion, because of triac schedule change, impedance,

      especially if you add imprecision

      one error that I see in hypercitical tactics is transforming ignorance, lack of information of puny details, minors errors,, into certainty of fraud, eliminating the dozens of counterevidence that show that the conspiracy is even more impossible.

      I repeat, the tactic is to assume oversimplified situation, eliminate the simple explanations that are not "perfect" (puny impricisions&mistakes in report), conclude it does not work, and finally propose an even more crazy hypothesis, carefully not trying to see the incoherence in it.

      what RQ report says is that the C1/C2 paragraph as interpreted by himself is impossible.
      I agree.

      this is why I first attack his interpretation, then the paragraph.
      I don't start by imagining coaxian cable installed by 6 physicist without the help of Indstrial Heat, or magic clamps that change polarity coherently without human intervention.

      finally and that is right, the only explanation beside some annoying errors in writing and measuring and globally positive reality, is an international conspiracy from Fleischmann to Levi.

      what I ask is simply that you admit that there is only two hypothesis. a big 30 years old conspiracy, or an imperfect report on a working device.

      minor question is the performance and I am ready to see that there is calibration errors, overestimation of some errors, underestimation of some others.

    9. Let me get this straight: the report (esp. Fig 4) shows a pretty ordinary 3-phase coupling. Levi et al. do not (or do they somewhere?) report anything that would say otherwise. Instead they report a factor of 2 (pr 0.5) that does not fit the figure (which you admit) without realizing it and commenting.

      But you claim that pulses are formed (or manipulated for some reason - why would that be necessary ??) in a way that is not reported but should explain away the discrepancies.

      To express it differently: you claim that you can somehow explain away all the problems (without support from what is found in Levi et al itself).

      You also simply buy that the by Rossi and others so acclaimed team still has not managed to make a proper measurement (how difficult can it be after so many years of work?), has calibration problems, etc., and everything else which disturbs your picture of "the truth".

      And after you manage that much bending over backwards, you do accuse E-Cat and Levi et al. critiques of being part of a conspiracy? Well, that is interesting ...

      May the new year bring some enlightenment and less wishful thinking!

      Merry Christmas!

  3. I appreciate your efforts here. But I have a hard to to follow your technical argument and how you manage to explain away the obvious short-comings of the "TPR" report. Wouldn't you expect that "the professors" would write a report that is clear and leaves no room for any doubt about what it is they report?

    Concerning sqrt(3): not sure I follow you. Might be a language issue. But are you sure you have read Rutqusit? Are you sure you talk about a 3-phase system and not an ordinary 1-phase?

    If you have a good explanation for everything, why don't you write it up properly in a report (like Rutquist) that argues in a consistent and easy to follow why? Give it a try and maybe you realize what a challange this is for you (i.e. come with a consistent explanation).

  4. Hello Pomp,

    I think this is becoming a little repetitive now. But I think I will comment on the various articles you refer to, and start with Schumacher Part 1 (which I have also placed on the Schumacher site). Other comments will follow when I find the time ;-):

    Comments to the Schumacher part 1 article:

    A. "….Rossi, the inventor of the e-cat device"

    Please be aware of following:

    Rossi didn’t really invent something from scratch, but rather developed further upon what was done by Professor Sergio Focardi in the early 1990’s at the University of Bologna. He did nickel-hydrogen reactor experiments, and got Heat out larger than what could be explained by any chemical reactions.

    Focardi further published a few papers in the 1990’s on the subject in a scientific Journal (peer-reviewed ;-)… )

    - Focardi S, Habel R, Piantelli F (January 1994): "Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems". Il Nuovo Cimento A, Volume 107 A, Number 1, 163–167
    - Focardi S, Gabbani V, Montalbano V, Piantelli F, Veronesi S (November 1998). "Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems". Il Nuovo Cimento A, 111 (11): 1233–1242. OCLC 204819206. 
    - Neutron emission in Ni-H systems. Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996), Volume 112, Number 9, 921–931.
    Authors: Battaglia, Daddi, Focardi, Gabbani, Montalbano, Piantelli, Sona, Veronesi. Retrieved on SpringerLink.

    Later Rossi contacted Focardi with some creative ideas to possible increase power levels….

    In Professor Focardi’s own words:
    "After that, at a certain point ... I was running the risk of dying of a tumor. I was lucky, I found a good doctor who saved my life, and so I retired, I stopped working (as a professor, obviously), but kept on … then I did quit for a while … until Rossi looked me up……. and I could see that he had some innovative ideas; for instance, he immediately thought of using powder. Powder increases the surfaces involved……"

    B. "Rossi is a controversial character with a shady history[3,4]. Hence the e-cat always had a credibility problem."

    Yes, possibly,BUT there may be more sides to this story:

    General Emilio Spaziante has recently pleaded guilty for corruption and has been sentenced to serve 4 years in prison: he is the officer of the Guardia di Finanza that closed Rossi’s Petroldragon and all the other factories twenty years ago. This fact may cast some new light on that strange affair, that finished by Rossi being convicted of tax evasion (which seems triggered by desperate tentative to escape some money from the bankruptcy caused by the pursuits), lack of pollution permit (because a change in the laws, despite clear support of the government before and some media) , but no fraud, despite clear witch hunt in the press, with unsupported accusation.

    "one cannot fail to notice the coincidence in historical dates between the war against Andrea Rossi, now a major player in petroleum products thanks to his research and activities with Omar and Petroldragon, and the decision on the part of Camorra organized crime to establish itself firmly in the waste management business, and achieve a monopoly on waste disposal."

  5. Continued - Comments to the Schumacher part 1 article:

    C. "……Fleischmann & Pons announced cold fusion at low temperatures. But subsequent attempts by most scientists to replicate the effect failed and since then most scientists are sceptical about cold fusion experiments."

    I believe a more correct statement would be "attempts by the few important institutes that decided the faith of the F&P experiment, failed to replicate their results". AND the deciding Institutes where CALTECH and MIT.

    BUT: Was the attempts done by CALTECH, MIT and other laboratories anywhere close to being scientific replications?

    The deciding moment in time for Cold Fusion was the MAY 1989 APS meeting in Baltimore.

    A frenzy of tests had been performed between March 23. and May 1. 1989. Tests at Caltech , MIT and in other labs. Tests based on data from "news articles" and "TV pictures", since Fleischmann and Pons did not reveal any exact lab data. So, These were very far from "scientific" replication efforts.

    On May 1-2, 1989, a series of three "cold fusion" press conferences took place in Baltimore, MD at the American Physical Society meeting, the world’s largest yearly gathering of physicists. And Cold Fusion was pronounced dead and buried.

    As The press after reported: NYT: "….the scientists on a panel at the American Physical Society meeting Tuesday voted 8-1 that they were 95 percent confident the excess heat was not produced by nuclear fusion."

    Associated Press: "A panel of nine scientists on Tuesday disparaged Utah researchers' claim of achieving fusion in a jar, suggesting they were fooled by faulty measurements."

    Professor Fleischmann was probably the leading scientist in the 20th century on calorimetry, so accusing him of fault by not "stirring" was a pretty offensive remark. And As it was shown later the Fleischmann cell needed absolutely no stirring.

    SO from 2.May 1989 Cold Fusion was no longer part of mainstream Science.

    It’s interesting to watch the press conference, where Nathan Lewis says they find no evidence of excess heat. Martin Fleischmann then replies that loading (Deuterium/Palladium ratio) is not high enough, whereupon Lewis replies: "The loading is more than high enough ! " – as if Lewis new anything about what the loading ought to be !!! Well in the early 1990’s Stanford Research Institute proved that loading needed to be at least 92% to have any hope of seeing excess heat. The Caltech, MIT and other laboratories where nowhere close to 90%, but rather down around 80% loading.

    And that is the sad story how the science of Cold fusion got the worst start imaginable.

    C. "It is also strange that an electrical heater is required not only to initiate but also to control a highly exothermic reaction; normally a cooler is used for this purpose"

    As shown in some experiments an initial temperature is required to reach the condition of LENR. Also it’s possible that an active AC coil is required to induce electrical currents in the reactor material to sustain LENR, which has been shown by other scientists to enhance the LENR effect (like Celani wire).

  6. Last Comment to the Schumacher part 1 article:

    D. "….measure temperatures of the reactor by IR camera rather than fluid calorimetry"

    Of course, fluid calorimetry would be preferred, but would complicate the setup and increase the costs (It’s my understanding that it’s the related costs that prohibited fluid calorimetry in the latest test).

    Anyhow: There is nothing magical to using IR camera. The spectral range for both IR cameras used was from 7.5 to 13 μm. In that range, the alumina is opaque. So they used the right cameras for the job, no transparancy issues.

    E. "Andrea Rossi, the inventor, personally intervened several times."

    I think the important issue here was the sampling:
    "Do you think Rossi could somehow have manipulated these powders under your eyes?"
    Bo Höistad:
    "Of course we were very careful not to allow anything occult or hidden to happen, as a precaution. But the answer is no. We manipulated the ashes. Rossi was present, and he assisted in the operation."

    My own comment here is that a 0,2% ash sample is not likely to be representative of the total.

    F. "…not ruling out manipulations by wiring tricks"

    It’s was the testers own wiring and equipment that was used, so Schumcacher imply that this last test is part of a larger conspiracy?
    Well, I think not.

    Let me end by saying that I don’t consider myself being part of the "Rossi church", but I find the story interesting enough to follow it closely. Because of Professor Focardi, Celani, Piantelli and others work on Hydrogen/Nickel systems. And Because of the whole history of Cold Fusion and it’s maltreatment by the Scientific community.

    NEXT I will look at the Schumacher part 2....

  7. Hello Pomp,

    I have studied the Schumacher part 2 article, and have the following comments (Also placed on the Schumacher part 2 article site)

    Dear Mr. Schumacher,
    I have a few comments to your article part 2 (ref. also my comments to part 1):
    Thank you for a thorough and detailed analysis of the reported results.

    My first comment here is that the reported isotopic changes goes far beyond all other similar reports within the LENR community. As an example we may refer to the many transmutation reports from Japan LENR researchers in Mitsubishi Heavy Industry and Toyota Central Research and Development Labs.

    So is there another explanation except from trickery here?
    Firstly it is unfortunate that they where not able to take more than a sample of 2,13 mg of the ash. This is only a 0,2 wt% sample of total ash. I therefore think this sample is not representative (as You also mention as a possibility).

    The powder has been at a temperature between 1300 og 1500 degrees C for 32 days during the test, inside a sintered (and somewhat porous ?) Alumina cylinder. Surely one would expect some isotopic separation (and evaporation) to occur during this time, like
    - Mg melts at 650 degC and boils at 1091 degC. Mg has probably evaporated and been absorbed by the Alumina substrate
    - Ca melts at 842 degC and boils at 1484 degC. May therefore also over time disappeared into the Alumina substrate
    - Same with Cl….

    Even Rossi himself seemed surprised of the analysis.

    Note also the statement in the report “The [ash] grains differ in element composition, and we would certainly have liked to analyze several more grains…..”

    Similar the fuel sample was only 10 mg, or 1% of total fuel powder. Is it possible that also fuel sample is not representative? Ref statement in the report: “It should be stressed, that the quantities of most elements differ substantially depending on which granule is analyzed”


  8. Continued - comments to Schumacher part 2 article:
    Further “Why did the role of Ni-62 change ?” and “No convincing theory is provided that would explain the experimental findings” and “Today´s knowledge of nuclear physics cannot explain these results, and unfortunately a new theory was not offered by Rossi and the Italo-Swedish research association.” :

    Anyone that has followed the history of cold fusion since 1989, also know there has been (and still is) a large number of theories trying to explain LENR. Rossi and his colleagues have probably worked on their own theory, with or without success so far. I think there is still a road to cover to explain LENR, including E-cat. Since 1989 there has been a separate Paradigm in the scientific world that have observed and accepted the existence of LENR. The problem seems to be to find one theory that explains all observations. The Widom-Larsen theory may be one candidate….

    And to repeat my comment from your PART 1 article: Note that the E-cat did not start from a theory. It started with professor Focardi, professor Piantelli and others experimenters findings of excess heat in Nickel/Hydrogen systems. If Rossi have something real, it’s because he has experimented and found an improved recipe, not because he is testing out a theory if his.

    Anyhow: Shall we deny ourselves the dinner of new discoveries, because of lack of theory or experimental results not conforming to theory? Or to repeat what the Nobel Price winner (in physics) Julian Seymour Schwinger said of his attempt to publish papers on Cold fusion :
    "What I had not expected was the venomous criticism, the contempt, the enormous pressure to conform. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?"

    With regards to your comment on handling of samples, I commented this on my comment to part 1. Bo Høistad believe they had adequately control to avoid trickery…

    “No truly independent test was ever allowed”. It was Sven Kullander who offered to do a test. It’s understandable that IH had some involvement to protect their trade secrets.

    “Rossi never allowed testing of the same device twice.” If the testers where themselves satisfied with previous tests, why would they want to do another test of the same device? I think it is understandable that they would rather test possibly improved versions of E-cat technology.

  9. Last comment to Schumacher Part 2 article:

    Your last two questions may be the most interesting ones
    “….What is the purpose of these papers?...” and “….why are they doing this?

    Obviously, if you do a test, you would want to report the findings afterwards. So rephrasing the first question we may ask “why did they do the test”?

    Then we need to do a little investigation:

    Who asked for the test? According to the “Acknowledgements” in the report “….it was late Sven Kullander, who initiated this independent test experiment.

    So: Why did Sven Kullander want to do this test?

    "Curiosity is a delicate little plant which, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in need of freedom" Albert Einstein 1949
    Possibly because he considered Professor Focardi a friend, and trusted Focardi’s findings of excess heat in Nickel/hydrogens systems ? And I’m sure Focardi told Kullander how he and Rossi met (Ref. my comments to Part 1),so, May be his intuition told him to investigate further?

    May be because Kullander loved a mystery?
    "The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. – Albert Einstein 1931

    Perhaps to obtain knew knowledge of nature?
    May be because of “Pleasure to Finding things out”?

    Perhaps he imagined Nature still have some surprises up her sleeves? Just As Professor Martin Fleischmann and Pons did, when they started their cold fusion journey back in 1983
    "I'm enough of an artist to draw freely on my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited; imagination encircles the world." – Albert Einstein 1929

    Below is a few actual thoughts from Sven Kullander on the E-cat story

    Reported from John Olov Hampus Ersa Ericsson:
    “We talked about cold fusion and his views on Andrea Rossi. He told me about his deep respect for Focardi and how collaboration with him really makes Rossi look good. Sven also said that the reason why only he in the academic field takes cold fusion seriously is because he will soon retire and are not afraid of ruining his carrier.”

    “Kullander told further about their personal experiences of a large number of people at the University of Bologna has been more or less concerned about the ECAT, the most active of course Focardi and Levi. He feels these people knowledgeable and up to serious, from the president down. Kullander feel even Rossi as sincere and serious and a very knowledgeable and skilled engineer but somewhat discursive reasoning when entering the field of physics. He also talked about discussions he had with Levi for a large number of tests that are not described but conducted by Levi, who personally knows the ECAT works.”

    “Then he talked about his own test, he said that it proved that heat was made but he couldn’t say how, and he dont believe it’s cold fusion because that impossible by today’s science. But it could only be explained by cold fusion happening. He was very confused…”

    “He also said that Rossi is definitely not a fraud and that his friend professor Focardi and professor Levi is absolutely not frauds. They are his friends and he trust them.”

    1. And yes it is a bit repetitive on your side....

      And I am also not sure if I should go and answer all your comments about someone elses report on my blog.

      Why don't you write your own report and place it on the web? How about contacting Schumacher with your comments? Do you plan to comment on all other critiques of the (dead) Cat here too?

      And: nothing you say is about Rutquist and the electric coupling? Or the isotope problem? Nothing about the bad quality of the in the Cat-scene so highly acclaimed "TPR"?
      Do you really still trust the Levi et al reports? If so this is quite astonishing ...

  10. Hello again,

    I had no intention of offending anyone with my comments above. And as stated early in the comments I did place these on the Schumacher site part 1 & part 2.

    The reason for having them also here is that at you are and have been one of the more important critics, and at least some of my comments covers issues in your criticism. I thought it would be fair to show that there may be other explanations and viewpoints.

    Anyhow: I fully respect your views of the E-cat. And I fully appreciate that a claimed excess heat and nuclear related process without commensurate radiation, is pure insanity by today’s physics. But then again it seems this is just what is happening in the thousands of experiments performed from the time of Fleischmann & Pons and until today. Only the boldest of the bold (and possibly a little insane?) scientist will dear to take the required step outside the present paradigm of science to investigate possible explanations, on the peril of their careers.

    I would not use 5 seconds on Rossi had it all been claims from himself. But as Sven Kullander said, his connection with Professor Focardi and Professor Levi makes him look good (or at least better).
    If Rossi is a scam artist, I don’t understand his ultimate goal here. He should have cashed out and left the stage long ago.

    May be Rossi actually believes in this himself, but it’s all an illusion and measurement errors over the years? Just as was concluded for Fleischmann & Pons cell, and similar to the story of “N-rays” and “Polywater”.
    Interesting to note that the physicists back in 1989 said exactly the same about F&P: It was a scam to get funds from the government (20 MUSD to be redirected from Hot Fusion research). Years later the same physicists said “OK, so F&P probably believed in CF themselves, but it was just an illusion and measurement errors”. But cold fusion, one of the “Zombies of science “ would never give in, and now LENR research is gaining worldwide attraction once again…

    Also the facts that it all started within academia, with professor Piantelli (I believe) that originally discovered some strange excess heat phenomenon in Nickel / hydrogen systems, continued with Focardi and others, makes it somewhat easier to believe. That means Rossi has “only” built further upon work from real scientists and found an improved recipe by experiments.

    I will try to be less repetitive, but I believe it is fair to make a few more comments, both with regards to the Siegel review, and to the Rudquist analysis.

    1. Thanks for pointing this out and I appreciate it.

      However I believe that you make a couple of mistakes. One is that you value to much that fact that cold fusion is "outside the paradigm". Let me assure you: all scientists (!) want to get outside the paradigm! Because that would be the real breakthrough and an almost certain Nobel prize! Yes indeed! But claims outside the paradigm alone are, unfortunately, not enough. Proof is needed. And 25 years after PF (or FP) it is still not accepted by mainstream.

      Why is that so? Some claim conspiracy and people wanting to stay with "the paradigm" (a much overvalued concept btw).
      But if there were any proof and reproducibility it would be mainstream (and "a new paradigm") within no time!

      And do scientists make mistakes? Yes they do! There are thousands of nuclear physicists. There must be lots and lots of mistakes (I have done many myself and will continue to do so I am afraid). But the point is one has to find the mistakes and not stick to them and keep claiming that there weren't any. So in this respect the fact that PF (or FP) believe in cold fusion, or that Piantelli, Focardi, Kullander, or Höistad believe it doesn't mean a thing ... But the fact that the so-called TPRs (both 1 and 2) are so bad quality should tell us something ...

      Last not least: you don't understand Rossi? Neither do I. And what does that have to do with it? What do you know about his business? He might have made millions already. At least he claimed to have sold a 1MW plant, right? He also claimed to have sold some rights if I remember correctly. Shortly after TPR2 was published I think ... And maybe he just likes the attention and the kick he gets from all the interest from so many cold fusion fans around the world (and also from all the critics ...). So to ask about Rossis motives is useless here.

      P.S.: Why do I write PF (or FP)? I read somewhere that when the CF claims were fresh the American was put first. After all the problems became clear it is the British scientist same up front. Not sure if it is true but an interesting thought...

    2. I would like to expand a bit on the paradigm thing since this argument - that roughly goes that something that is "outside the paradigm" is true just because it is outside and it is only the bold thinkers that try to go there - is very popular among cold fusion fans. It seems.

      There is a whole branch of people (besides scientist, see my comment above) that try to imagine other worlds or another physics. These people write science fiction. They try to imagine what other worlds could be possible. And indeed there is an infinity out of possible worlds. There could be millions of different physics'. Right?

      But only one is realized. There are certain forces, the value of so called constants of nature are fixed to something (but couldn't they be different?) etc. There might be anti-gravity boots. There might be faster-than-light particles (and well, maybe there are), and there might be millions of other things.

      What I mean is that there are really many possibilities how the world could be and scientist and science fiction authors try to thing about that. While the authors are happy with producing a good book, scientist try to figure out which of the many possibilities is actually true. And among these possibilities we choose to believe in those that get confirmed. And not in all the others that might also be true and actually very interesting and attractive but unfortunately ...

  11. So for the Siegel review of the last test:

    You refer to Siegel review as “excellent comments”, well I think there are reasons to be a little more critical of Siegel.

    Note: I will put the following also on Siegel’s website, for him to comment, but I doubt he will. In my last attempt my comment didn’t even get through his moderation….

    The first question that we may ask is what the first 6 pictures means, which he calls a “cold fusion hoax by Juan-Louis Naudin, 2003” ?

    A minor correction: It’s not “Juan-Louis”, but Jean-Louis.

    But why does he call the pictures a hoax, and what is their relation to Rossi’s device?

    I believe, his statement reveals what Siegel knows about the history of cold fusion and how much he have researched into the issue,.….seemingly nothing.

    But Siegel does know for sure that LENR/Cold Fusion is Pseudoscience, and therefore need no further investigation.

    Siegel also states easily what he need of proof to accept that LENR is real:
    “Successful detection of gamma-rays coming from the device, a telltale signal that’s a by-product of all known nuclear reactions.”
    So he demands something that has been exactly a riddle in the field of LENR; Where are the missing gamma’s?
    On one hand he indicates some openness and says “…nature sometimes surprises us”, but on the other hand, he will never accept a discovery that do not conform to our precious knowledge of present physics. But It’s a typical tradesmark of most scientists: To prefer scientific news that confirms what he already knows, and avoiding potential new discoveries that rocks the foundation of what they have built a career upon.

    So Siegel search the web for “cold fusion pictures” and find the lab of Jean-Louis Naudin, and these pictures at:

    And who is Jean-Louis Naudin? Today he works with drone technology, but back in 1997-2005 he was active researcher & experimenter into various fields, where cold fusion was one field of interest. More importantly he investigated and replicated CLAIMS from other inventors, scientists and experimenters, and reported honestly what he found, positive or negative results. Not a typical trademark of a “scammer”.

    And what replication effort were these pictures related to?

    It was related to cold fusion research done in Japan:
    “….fully based on the work of the researchers Tadahiko MIZUNO and Tadayoshi OHMORI from the Hokkaido University in Japan”
    Detailed in the papers in Japanese Journal of Applied Physics :
    -Production of Heat During Plasma Electrolysis. Mizuno, T., et al - Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2000. 39: p. 6055
    -Confirmation of anomalous hydrogen generation by plasma electrolysis. Mizuno, T., T. Akimoto, and T. Ohmori. in 4th Meeting of Japan CF Research Society. 2003. Iwate, Japan: Iwate University.
    And who is the authors of above papers; Tadahiko Mizuno, Tadyaoshi Ohmori and Tadashi Akimoto?
    Dr. Mizuno (retired, D.Eng。,applied physics,Hokkaido University,Japan,
    1973) was assistant professor teaching the Atomic Power Environmental Materials program at Hokkaido University. Mizuno was awarded the Giuliano Preparata medal in 2004 from The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science
    Dr. Tadashi Akimoto (D.Eng.,nuclear engineering,Hokkaido University,1992) works at Nuclear engineering at Hokkaido University.
    Tadayoshi Ohmori works at Catalysis Research Center, Hokkaido University

    Cont. below

  12. Comment continued:

    SO the Hoax here is that Jean-Louis Naudin managed to replicate the findings from some Japanese research?

    And the only connection with Rossi is that both are seemingly connected to the same phenomenon; Cold Fusion or LENR.

    SO: The “open minded” Siegel starts his article by offending a few fine Japanese Colleagues.


    Now then : For the other requirements of Siegel:
    “A device that demonstrably was generating its own, self-sustaining energy reaction, unpowered by an outside source of any type“
    So Siegel requires a finished R&D completed commercial plant before he would believe. Fine, but It’s clear that he would miss out on all early stage discoveries. Like also Fleischmann and Pons would get nowhere with Siegel, even if they had the discovery of the century. And the wiring issue is pure conspiracy theory, i.e. it was the testers own equipment and wiring that was used. SO they were in on a conspiracy? …fine!

    “A quality, closed-calorimeter measurement of the energy output of the device”
    Siegel may contact Michael Mckubre at Stanford Research Institute for closed calorimeter proofs of Fleischmann type cold fusion cell. Many replications have been done.

    Siegel criticizes the use of IR, which we have discussed elsewhere, but also think temperature may be different on different sides of the tube….The diameter of the Alumina cylinder is only 2 cm. It’s therefore difficult to imagine very big difference in temperature around the cylinder at 1200 degC on one side. Had the diameter been considerable larger, like 10 cm, I agree that there could be differences in temperature and give misleading measurements and calculations

    “Successful detection of gamma-rays coming from the device, a telltale signal that’s a by-product of all known nuclear reactions”
    Well then we are stuck. LENR / Cold fusion have shown little gamma’s. Possibly short bursts initially….Siegel is then stuck on his paradigm Island where Gamma-rays are required. And he will not take the boat to the other Island to investigate the Paradigm where LENR are possible.

    The claim of what is happening inside the reactor, should be read as speculations, not a confirmed discovery. There are dozens of different theories in the LENR community, that are trying to explain LENR without the commensurate radiation. No conclusive theory have been agreed upon yet, I believe.

    “An examination of the before-and-after of all products and reactants, to verify that a nuclear transmutation had, in fact, taken place”
    I fully agree that a 0,2 wt% ash sample is too small to be trusted as being representative. But I don’t see why a too small sample should hinder science in further interest and investigations. And Siegel may also contact Japanese CF researchers at Mitsubishi and Toyota to get actual proof of LENR based transmutations.

    “And finally, I’d demand that the test take place independently, meaning that the team that performed it was a team of reputable scientists with a track record of scientific integrity, without outside interference from Rossi or his associates.”
    I think Siegel missed the point that it was Kullander that offered to do a test, and not Rossi that ordered a test. So in my understanding this was driven by pure scientific curiosity from the testers. And the report is not answering all questions, and may well have errors, but assuming one of three clamps on both meters connected the wrong way, is in my opinion one assumption too much.

    1. Ok, thanks (I guess) for collecting your comments here and I presume you also have posted that on Siegels page or mailed it to him?

  13. About gamma, I imagine that autoradiography taken at BARC is also a conspiracy fraud

    as are the tritium analysis.

    as is not the observed cherry-picking of taubes to deny Bockris trittium...

    the more you add evidences the more it is clear that the denial theory is a pile of conspiracies.

    nobody to see at least the possibility of a problem ? nobody?


  14. Alain, this is not a question of whether any theory is correct, or even whether LENR exists. This is a very simple question: Has the e-cat been shown to work? As Siegel explains, the test of the e-cat had no constraints for validity.

    If you really care about speculative physics, why isn't your first priority getting Rossi out of the picture, since he's sabotaging all attempts to put anyone's speculation to the test?

  15. Update:
    The MFMP experimental data are in agreement with those reported in the literature and confirm that the procedure and the Emissivity values, used by the TPR2 AA for measurements by the thermal imager, are incorrect. The GSVIT experimental test further showed that the pure Alumina Spectral Emissivity, in the reading field of the camera used to testing the Hot-Cat, is greater than 0.90. These data are very different from those plotted and used in the TPR2 by the AA that appear to be those related to Alumina Total Emissivity. In the 1200-1400°C temperature range, the TPR2 Plot1 considers an emissivity of about 0.40 while, according to the literature, the Spectral Emissivity, in the camera reading field, is stable around values close to 0.95. This kind of error can lead to a significant overestimation of the surface temperature and to an overestimation of thermal Power by a factor 2 or more. An error of such proportions (which appears likely in the light of the measurements) makes not reliable, in our opinion, the TPR2 measurement results of the heat produced by the Hot-Cat; on the contrary, a simple Mass Flow Calorimetry, similar to the one shown in a previous Post of ours, would have been feasible and most accurate."

  16. Dear Pomp,

    Your answer above on the issue of paradigm and “all scientists (!) want to get outside the paradigm” is interesting! Discussion on Paradigm and scientific progress could even deserve a separate blog post.

    First, the definition of paradigm according to Thomas Kuhn: "universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners, i.e.,
    • what is to be observed and scrutinized
    • the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject
    • how these questions are to be structured
    • how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted
    • how is an experiment to be conducted, and what equipment is available to conduct the experiment.

    A lot of research have been done on the issue of progress of science and paradigms. And no, I don’t agree with your statement above.

    Scientists are only humans with the same behavior as everybody else which normally would
    - Oppose changes: Humans prefer things to stay the way they are.
    - Not accept provocative ideas, theories or proposals, i.e. people generally don’t like outsiders, stay with the pack!
    - Etc.

    To conform is the rule of life and human society, including all fields of science. And most Nobel prize’s could be argued is research within a paradigm, i.e. the majority have expanded the knowledge within their paradigm.

    An example of how this worked in the field of cold fusion:

    The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Trombay is India’s premier nuclear research center, “with expertise covering the entire spectrum of Nuclear Science and Engineering and related areas” (http://www.barc.gov.in/).

    From 1989 through 1994, some of the best cold fusion research ever published was performed at BARC, under the leadership of the Center’s director Dr. P. K. Iyengar. They even found large amounts of tritium in some of the tests performed, a clear evidence of nuclear reactions (but yes, low repeatability).

    So, why did they stop the research in 1994? According to one of the physicists involved M. Srinivasan, they stopped the research because of “global peer pressure”.

    Cold fusion was concluded pathological science in 1989, which meant there was no mainstream scientific channels to present and discuss results. It’s was fully ignored by the mainstream and papers not accepted, so what more could any scientists do, than to conform to the pack, and turn their back to this field?

    cont. below...

  17. Continued:

    Now to your statement “But claims outside the paradigm alone are, unfortunately, not enough. Proof is needed. And 25 years after PF (or FP) it is still not accepted by mainstream.”

    Well then. Of course claims are not enough, but of what constitute a “proof”? If anyone by accident discover something that we don’t understand, and is difficult to replicate, at what point do we have a proof that something strange is occurring?

    In the event of F&P they started with experiment, not with a theory they wanted to test. And that was their problem. They found an anomaly, but had no theory to explain, and therefore no test protocol to ensure repeatability….

    I believe F&P had excess heat bursts in some 1 out of 8 electrolytic cells in 1989. Is 10% success ratio enough to be called proof of anomaly? I would say it surely is proof enough to put time & resources into further investigation.

    And then we have the chicken and the egg: Mainstream is waiting for the small CF community to come up with a fail proof theory and a test protocol producing 100% repeatable results. On the other side of the battlefield, the CF community is waiting for the mainstream community to wake up and put some resources into testing some of the 100+ theories that have been proposed since 19889. From theory a 100% fail proof test protocol may be developed.

    The scientific community should have jumped into this field with all their expertise to develop testable theories! Unfortunately, they did not, despite all the evidence gathered during the early nineties. But most of the science community turned their back to cold fusion in May 1989, and never came back…. Now we are 25 years later, and progress has been slow, but still….Interest is increasing, and the most promising theory now may be the Widom-Larsen theory, which may or may not be correct. If it is correct, it’s probably not explaining everything, but it is at least a start!

  18. Cats keep on spreading "good news", even more unbelievable ones like the followig from Rampado: “NAZARBAYEV BELIEVES IN PERPETUAL MOTION“


    1. so does airbus

  19. Whow, AlainCo: a totally new piece of paper stating rights on unicorn discovery...now you miss only the unicorn, then everything will be fine!
    Happy landing and thanks for flying with AirBus.

    1. the list of unicorn start to be big.
      I admire your capacity to be sure of your beliefs.
      Poor people like me have to manage uncertainty, make mistakes, take risk, gather data, try to guess, to trust experts and choose the trustable sources...

      you are really great as you never have any doubt, whatever is the source.

      I'm a bit jealous of your greatness. You take it from what ? the books of physics I imagine?

  20. Your matter, AlainCo, is that you do not recognize a fraud even when everyone around you state it clear - books of physic did not help you a lot, better you leave them to someone else. Try starting understand difference in tru/false easy sentences like "water boils at 100 c" and "my igrometer probe ensures vapor was dry", for example. Once you understand where the lie is, you might take level two: discover who really lied all these years, in name of what and what he got and what is likely to get in future for all those lies.


    1. future will say if all the domain is fraud...

      if not, you will be proven wrong. and it will be an energy revolution that you have slowed.

      until now the opponents to cold fusion have either taken hypothesis of positive skeptics like MFMP or Gamberale, or raised wrong explanation like Mizuno pump, Lugano magic clamps , stage magic.

      Basically, unlike the critics of serious skeptics like McKubre , gamberale, Greenyer, Lomax, groups of religious opponents just radicalized their opponents (me included). unproductive is an understatement.

    2. The problem with such statements "the future will say if" is that there is no deadline. not for you in any case. since all the evidence that clearly already now talks against that the Cat works is ignored by you. what if anything could convince you that the Cat is a joke?

    3. Stephan, when Alain says "all domain" I believe he refers to CF in general. It's a large field with many claims made since 1989.

      And no, future really has no deadline. And only future will tell if the hot fusion ITER will ever be successful.

      We have not yet come to the end of science. New discoveries are waiting for the ones that not only choose to see and make opinions from behind their office desks, but choose to observe and get their hands dirty by real investigations.

      And Rudquist is saying in his analysis "let's assume....", and "let's further assume....". Rudquist are entitled to claim hidden wires are the explanation, which is his opinion in the absence of evidence, which is normally called prejudice.

      And I believe we will hear from the Cherokee Investment Partners / CEO Tom Darden or their Industrial Heat Company at some point if their investments and this technology was a joke or not.

    4. Same thing hold for CF in general.

      Concerning hot fusion: there is one tiny thing you seem to miss (or deliberately mix or misunderstand):
      Fusion does work! It is well proven. Fusion reactions do exist and drive the universe. Artificial (man made) fusion reactions have been made since decades! At JET one even has achieved as high as 60% energy return. Whether, of course, fusion will work on big industrial scale at competitive price is an entirely different question. So please do not mix up things.

    5. And: claims about the existence of anti-gravity boots might have been made (don't know but assume for fun) for an even longer time as CF. And since we will never reach the end of science (obviously true) this means, according to your logic, that anti-gravity boots exist. Hmm, interesting.

    6. Firstly, yes I did mean Industrial scale Fusion when referring to ITER, which have had it's "deadline" moved a few times....

      And I do consider LENR a proven fact, as being an excess heat event beyond chemistry.

      Therefore, there is no "deadline" to be considered for CF, only hard work until understanding is complete.

      Now then, what excactly the source is, is yet to be proven by testing the various theories proposed.

      And I note that mainstream Universities are waking up.

      Like Texas Tech. University, which recently announced the creation of a new "Center for Emerging Energy Sciences" (CEES) in 2015. CEES seek to understand the origins of the Anomalous Heat Effect (AHE) in certain metals that are loaded with hydrogen isotopes, i.e. Also know as LENR or CF....

      Also a few days ago a press release told that The Research Center for Electron Photon Science of Tohoku University agreed to establish a collaborative research division (with some private companies) – Condensed Matter Nuclear Reaction Division at Tohoku University. This new research division will be devoted to developing practical applications for clean energy using LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, (a.k.a. Cold Fusion). Tohoku U. Is considered as one of the most prestigious universities in Japan, and one of the top fifty universities in the world.

      I prefer to agree with the physicist Michio Kaku, who says: "Nothing should be considered impossible or beyond our eventual understanding."

      So if professor Piantelli and professor Focardi where right i their Nickel Hydrogen excess heat discoveries, then I will not be surprised if engineer Rossi have been able to develop an Industrial and possible commercial Solution.

      And I don't think we should laugh away antigravity ;-) I believe Michio Kaku speculated about monopoles wrt antigravity ;-) Anyhow, laws of nature can never be proven, as theorems of mathematics can. Laws of nature can only be said to be "reasonably" proven, by being in accordance with a certain number of observations. Therefore I believe nature still have some surprises up her sleeve.

    7. "So if professor Piantelli and professor Focardi where right"
      Are you joking? One of the two was a crank, and the other one is claiming he has perpetual motion cells - as long as no one dare to test...There should be a limit to gullibility - do you even believe Petroldragon was a true oil producing factory?

    8. Haha, may be it's a good sign that Cimpy's best and most serious critic of cold fusion are insults..

      But this is the price any scientist that discover new truths (that don't conform to common knowledge) have to pay: being called crank's by the Cimpy's of their time.


    9. Not sure if I should bother to comment (again). LENR a proven fact? You must be kidding (but I know you are not). Of course it is just "the establishment" that does not realize this "proven fact", right? Sigh ...

    10. To avoid misunderstanding: I was convinced of LENR long before Rossi came on stage. It must have been back in 2001, when I discovered the results from the Japanese scientists at Toyota and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

      And then I noted what F&P had achieved in France, what Mckubre had achieved at SRI, what the Italians had achieved at ENEA, what american scientists had achieved at SPAWAR, what Indian scientists had achieved at BARC, and so on. Just too long list of successful excess heat results far beyond chemistry, for all to be illusions.

      Too many experimental results have shown that nature have more to offer! So shall we trust experimental results or our present precious theories...that have "only" been reasonably proven...by experiments...

      There is nothing surprising that "etablishment" shows skepticism towards discoveries that contradicts present knowledge. And for new truths to take 20-30 years before "mainstream" starts to take it seriously is actually short time, if we read the history of scientific progress and Paradigm shifts.

      I may recommend the fascinating book "annerledestenkerne" by Per Arne Bjørkum, which present people who dared to challenge the accepted truths of their time, how they where ridiculed, which battles they had to fight, and how they eventually where behind the new Scientific truths and Paradigms.

      Anyhow: It is initially up to the "believers" and "followers" to establish adequate proof that "mainstream" may accept and initiate better research. And that is where we are now: mainstream are waking up.

  21. By the way, russian Cat showed some matters in these days. Strangely, AlainCo, how could it be the man Rossi said was doing a great job put on the web a fake like that? And it was said it was really a "Rossi replication" ( http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/27/parkhomov-again-replicates-rossi-effect-the-challenge-is-before-the-scientific-community/ ) - guess what: it really was, as replication of a fake could only be a fake if it is claimed working...



  22.  I was convinced of LENR long before Rossi came on stage. It must have been back in 2001, when I discovered the results from the Japanese scientists at Toyota and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
    Thus, cold fusion has been achieved long ago by Toyota and Mitsubishi.
    And so, where is it now? How could it be it disapoeared? How is that, many years after that achievement, we are still hearing claims of people "near to be ready"....to test it?!?
    I am still convinced half people believing fir so many years that something extremely useful does exists but it is buried in a kind of "51 area" is crancked. And the other half is part of the scam. But you can p r ove how much wrong am I simply taking the miracle out of 51 area and putting it (and not words or papers) in the real world. Can you?


  23. "Thus, cold fusion has been achieved long ago by Toyota and Mitsubishi.
    And so, where is it now? How could it be it disapoeared?"

    Cimpy, Has anyone said it disappeared?

    Toyota and Mitsubishi are still at it.
    Toyota reported replication of Mitsubishis LENR results back in 2012, as reported at American Nuclear Society session on Nov. 14 in San Diego, Calif. “Toyota researchers confirmed that nuclear changes from one element to another took place without the use of high-energy nuclear physics.”

    Mitsubishi is still at it doing research and using money on patents. Latest 2015 patent:

    But again, without a confirmed theory it's difficult to engineer these results into commercial products with adequate commercial repeatability.

    In addition Japanese LENR transmutations have been replicated by Osaka University and Iwate University.

    The research on these issues have appeared in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics.

  24. "without a confirmed theory it's difficult to engineer these results into commercial products with adequate commercial repeatability"

    No repeatability, no party

    It is useless you claim fusion has been achieved since years and is studied for so long to end up with "but we lack theory, thus we are not able to show it" (don't you feel a bit silly reading your own sentence?).

    If you are not able to show it, you have only papers that say someone claimed they did, but no way to prove it. And no fusion machine. And no fusion at all.

    What a pity!

  25. Toyota and Mitsubishi are still at it.
    Like UniBo or Uppsala, I can guess. 2 people in Unibo, 2 in Uppsala plus a couple of retired friends. All the others do not speak, so they must agree, don't they? At least in your mind...

    How many in Toyota and Mitsubishi? More than four people? And of course, they lack theory, that is why in more than 20 years we are still waiting for something that could be repeated somewhere else, say, in a laboratory were there are no believers but scientists.

    Is it a matter of faith? Would it work only if you strongly believe in it, like in the Keshe case? Or is it a matter of time, say a couple of millennium, starting by now?

    But you have papers - I am sure they are all accepted by scientific community - and big names under claims of sure transmutations. Guess what: I do not want to believe, I want facts and that is exactly what you lack: facts are based on repeatability, not on a paper with some (few) names on it. By the way, have you at least an idea of how many scientists should be inside those institutions? And how many institutions are in the world? Guess what: you're speaking of a small bounch of people that pretend to speak for a larger community that do not believe in their claims as these are at present day (and since 20 and more years, not 20 days) just claims

    Again, what a pity!

  26. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

  27. Cimpy, it is hard to understand why you and Your friends are so impatient. 25 years of research on a Discovery that challenge present theories are a short time in History. Read some books on the progress of science and Paradigm shifts and learn some truths of the matter.

    A recent example:

    Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes were first discovered in 1991. 24 years of research later and the underlying mechanism by which lightning is associated with TGFs is still a mystery. Yes, there are several hypothesis proposed, just as with LENR's.

    Though the details of the mechanism are uncertain, there is a consensus forming about the physical requirement.....ooooops why do this reminds me of the history of Cold Fusion?

    Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGF) pose a challenge to current theories of lightning, especially with the discovery of the clear signatures of antimatter produced produced in lightning.

    But as I said: Nature have more surprises up her sleeve!

  28. 25 years of fraud are enough.

    Of course, it make perfect sense that someone hoping in miracle - even if he really and simply hoped in it, and was not part of the scam - put the goal farther in the nearer future year after year.
    25 are not enough even to ensure phenomena might or might not happen under special conditions on earth -mostly because fraudsters believers and even cheated do claim from time to time they were exposed to a miracle they (of course) cannot replicate.
    It is of these days Parkhomov story - it is going to and end, even if I am sure you would find believers for years - same stuff about Hyperion and sinche a couple of years the story of Fleishmann and Pons has been renewed by new lies. It is not a matter of time and suprise, is a matter of smart people like Rossi and the like. And of gullibility, of course - they would never survive without it.

  29. A term I have seen used by defenders of, well, strange or unusual opinions is pre-science. The term is, in my mind a euphemism, trying to imply that it will develop into a proper since but isn't just yet.

    The problem in such cases, and here in the CF case is the usual: where is the evidence? 25 years of "research" by, e.g, big companies (name dropping?!) and still no properly published results? If its a secret its a secret as Rossi says. Well, there even are some priests bleive in the secret and pray to the hidden knowledge that is hidden to ordinary people. Of course these ordinary people that ask the troublesome question (watch Michael Shermers "Baloney detection kit" and a least try to think if CF is not described pretty well in this movie) are labeled as narrow-minded and opposed to progress, bought by industry or whatever.
    All I can say is that science is not about believe but about hypothesis and refutations. Nothing wrong with a hypothesis but please if it does not work it doesn't! Don't waste energy (!) on false tracks. Instead try a new hypothesis. THAT is how we progress. Not defending old ideas (yes, CF is a pretty old idea!) against better knowledge.

  30. So, Pomp,
    It' my turn to say "sigh"
    "where is the evidence?"
    Have you ever looked at any of the 1000+ papers on the subject? No, of course you don't have to, since the "laws of nature" ("proven by experiments", tells us that this is junk.

    And we have reached the end of science. Nothing more to discover. And Terrestrial gamma rays are probably just an illusions.

    " 25 years of "research" by, e.g, big companies (name dropping?!) and still no properly published results?"

    And what is a "properly published result"?
    Would papers in places like below fulfill your requirements? Which have all had papers within the LENR field
    "Transactions of the American Nuclear Society" or
    "Japanese Journal of Applied Physics" or
    "European Physical Journal, Applied Physics" or
    "Pramana – Journal of Physics" or
    "European Physical Journal C" or
    "European Physical Journal D" or
    "IL Nuovo Cimento" or
    "Fusion Science & Technology" or
    Indian "current science" or
    Papers from Los Alamos National Laboratory or
    "Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry" or
    Papers from "American Chemical Society" or
    Papers from "Proceeding of the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" or
    And the list may go on.....like
    Proceedings of any of the International Conferences on Cold Fusion.....OOOoOPs, of course not. This would mean believers are Peer reviewing papers innside their own belief system. Which means all papers for these proceedings must be junk. Of course!

    "Don't waste energy (!) on false tracks. Instead try a new hypothesis. THAT is how we progress. Not defending old ideas (yes, CF is a pretty old idea!) against better knowledge". Not sure what you refer to here. CF was just a name chosen for an "Excess heat event beyond chemistry occuring in hydrated or deuterated condensed matter". Now, what the energy source actually is remains to be identified. But if it's beyond chemistry, it must be some nuclear event, not?

  31. "And what is a "properly published result"?"

    Nice you bother to question. Answer is: none of your 1000+ papers. Guess why? Sounds as if rubbish paper is not considered valid science. As I told you, you lack serious jobs, both experimental and theoretical, But the most important thing is that all you have are claims based on the honorability of people which swear they got excess of (usually) heat (or in some case more neutrons than "normal" or some reaction derivation). But when someone not gullible is put in condition to look at, stramgely excesses (or extra neutrons or derivation products) disappear, like in MIzuno cells, in Hyperion reactor, in Celani tube, in Parkhomov dogbone, in Cirillo bottles and so on.

    What a pity, you have nothing at all but claims.

  32. Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.

  33. Cimpy, you chose to take on the question i asked Pomp, but not answer it? haha funny. Too difficult for you may be?

    Anyhow, man used electricity, before electricity where fullt understood. Man invented gas engines, before the science of combustion where fully understood. And man will use LENR before the theory behind it is fully revealed.

    And surprise, surprise: LENR will fit nicely into present nuclear physics, with only minor adjustments to current theory. Ironically the "father" of the fusion bomb, Edward Teller will likely be shown to be correct when he hypothesized that " he could account for it with a very small change in the laws of physics as he understood them, and it would prove to be an example of nuclear catalysis at an interface."


  34. Pomp; The Indian (mainstream) science journal, 'Current Science' have a special edition on LENR, in the Feb 2015 issue.

    Many interesting articles, like Mckubre's "Comments on the state of Scientific proof". And articles It's available online.


    1. "The Indian (mainstream) science journal"s editors and referees than see something that none else has seen the past 25 years. How could Nature, Science, Physical Review Letters, European Physical Journal, to name a few, miss this breaking discovery that should be awarded the Nobel prize? Conspiracy by the oil industry?

      But maybe the power of Indian gurus can help. Just give it time. The future will tell ... (sorry for being that ironic it just feels like that after all your strange comments and claims)

    2. The preface of this special issue seriously (!) discusses Rossis Cat. Come on. Seriously. I thought you yourself are far from convinced that the Cat is alive? And you give credit to this journal issue (and its editors) that fail to see the problems with the Cat? Seriously? Sorry, I just can't take something like this serious at all. Although, in a way, it is serious ... (playing with words).

    3. Pomp,

      The preface do also state "in the absence of a peer reviewed publication, we should treat it merely as an ‘un- proven’ claim"

      So they do indicate some caution wrt Rossi. But please, read the Mckubre article and give us your comments & criticism.

    4. "Some caution"?? Where are references to the so-called TPR and all the critical responses to them? Is that even a balanced view? No! What is totally missing in this preface (written rather recently it seems so a lot of the by now pretty detailed critique was available) and the whole issue is a clear review of the Cat (since it is mentioned in the preface) but this is lacking. Nevertheless the Cat is mentioned in the intro. That is not a serious take. It simply is one-sided pro Cat and exclusively pro-LENR.

    5. It 's only natural that the preface would mention e-cat, which have raised so much attention. But don't think LENR researchers are not critical thinkers. There are as much discussions and disagreements inside the LENR community (possibly even more) as there are in any other branches of science.

      And here is a few examples of LENR related papers that have appeared in mainstream journals;

      Weak-Interaction LENR Theory
      Widom, Allan, Larsen, Lewis, "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces," European Physical Journal C - Particles and Fields, Vol. 46(1), p.107-110 (2006)

      Heavy Element Transmutation in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
      Iwamura, Yasuhiro, "Transmutation Reactions Induced by Deuterium Permeation through Nano- structured Pd Multilayer Thin Film," Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 107, ISSN 0003-018x, p. 422-425, (2012)
      Heavy Element Transmutation in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
      Hioki, Tatsumi, Takahashi, Naoko, Kosaka, Satoru, Nishi, Teppei, Azuma, Hirozumi, Hibi, Shogo, Higuchi, Yuki, Murase, Atsushi and Motohiro, Tomoyoshi, "Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry Study on the Increase in the Amount of Pr Atoms for Cs-Ion-Implanted Pd/CaO Multilayer Complex with Deuterium Permeation," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 52, (October 4, 2013)

      Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., Szpak, Stanislaw, Gordon, Frank E. and Forsley, Larry P.G., "Characterization of Tracks in CR-39 Detectors Obtained as a Result of Pd/D Co-deposition," European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, 46, 30901, DOI: 10.1051/epjap/2009067, (17 April, 2009) (Full list of SPAWAR Papers)
      Review of use of SSNTDs in Pd/D and H/D Co-deposition Experiments
      Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., Szpak, Stanislaw, Gordon, Frank E. and Forsley, Larry P.G., "Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-deposition Experiments," European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, Vol. 40, p. 293–303, (Dec. 13, 2007) DOI: 10.1051/epjap:2007152 (Full list of SPAWAR Papers)
      Repeatable Experiment Producing Evidence of Charged Particles
      Mosier-Boss, Pamela A., Szpak, Stanislaw, Gordon, Frank E., "Further Evidence Of Nuclear Reactions In The Pd/D Lattice: Emission Of Charged Particles," Naturwissenschaften, Vol. 94(6), p. 511-514, DOI 10.1007/s00114-007-0221-7 (March 2007) (erratum) (Full list of SPAWAR Papers)

      Excess Heat

      Li, Xing Zhong, Liu, Bin, Tian, Jian, Wei, Qing Ming, Zhou, Rui and Yu, Zhi Wu, "Correlation Between Abnormal Deuterium Flux and Heat Flow in a D/Pd System," Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, Vol. 36, p. 3095, (2003)
      Excess Heat with High-Voltage Plasma Electrolysis
      Mizuno, Tadahiko, Ohmori, Tadayoshi, Akimoto, Tadashi, Takahashi, Akito, "Production of Heat During Plasma Electrolysis in Liquid," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 39 p. 6055 (2000)

      Excess Heat with High-Voltage Plasma Electrolysis
      Mizuno, Tadahiko., Akimoto, Tadashi, Ohmori, Tadayoshi, Takahashi, Akito, Yamada, Hiroshi and Numata, Hiroo, "Neutron Evolution from a Palladium Electrode by Alternate Absorption Treatment of Deuterium and Hydrogen," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 40, pg. L989-L991, (2001)

    6. Long long answer. The problem remains: why is there a mention of the E-Cat but no critical review of it? There is plenty of critique out there. But the preface makes no mention of it. I am sorry, this is simply not a serious approach. And creating (i.e. buying from the publisher) a special issue with some LENR guest editors doesn't rise my confidence in that particular pre-science field at all.

    7. "The problem remains: why is there a mention of the E-Cat but no critical review of it? "

      May be because e-cat is not that important in the field of LENR science?
      May be because LENR science is so much more and richer field than E-cat?
      Possibly because e-cat is a claimed commercial product from a private Company and not as such part of the Scientific field?
      May be because Current Science are more interested in the underlying science of LENR than possible rising commercial products?

      Anyhow, I would be more interested in your comments to the Current Science Mckubre article.

    8. Not that important? Come on. Why then is it dmentioned at all? Why is it not written that the Cat is a scam? Why is just mentioned with caution as you say? If it is a scam say so.

      Mckubre: is this the LENR guru? only had a quick look thus far in the reference of that article. Not impressed. After 25 years of LENR ... Maybe I will try to read it and see how far I get.

      And btw: all this comments on this E-Cat post. Why? If the Cat is not important? And what is your reaction to my critique here? To the critique Göran Ericsson and I had posted on arXiv? To Rutquist? Is the Cat a scam or not? Do you believe in Rossi or not?

    9. Not important in the sence of underlying science of LENR, then the other basic research is more important or revealing. And in my opinion no one should assume a scam before the professional investors have made their conclusion.

      Mckubre is not a Guru, but one of the electrochemist that has been involved in LENR since the early days (at Stanford Research Institute)

      Since the e-cat is a product now being commercialized, I prefer to wait for the final verdict from the owners, Industrial Heat Company (not owned by Rossi).

      And here is a comment to The critique of Eriksson and Pomp:

      And This was interesting
      ".......their model 810 W input does not actually yield the 300 C. The ECAT get to 300 C with 810 W when running continuously with resistivity heating only (dummy run). In the real experiment 300 C is reached when pumping 810W one third of the time, and 0W the remaining time. Hmm... I would like to know what kind of temperature they do reach in their simulations."

  35. "Strange comments and claims"? Not sure what you refer to here.

    Suggest you take 10 minutes to read the Mckubre article I refer to in Current Science above. Mckubre has been on this field for 25 years. Then you may give us some thoughts and criticism on an actual testimony from a real researcher in the field.

  36. And Mckubre have also raised seroius questions and criticism of the E-cat tests in his analysis, so yes, I am still waiting for the official verdict on this cat.

  37. "man will use LENR (...).And surprise, surprise: LENR will fit(...)
    You forgot to put a date on that. It was "around some months or next year" in 2010, it is still "within some months or next year" today, it will be again "within some months or the year after" next year. Dream happily, man will. One day, when you will be grown up, might be. For present time, wait for Easter Bunny: it is more reliable.

  38. "Mckubre has been on this field for 25 years"
    And he is still trying (without any luck) to demonstrate phenomena was real...
    "As of 2010, he was still making experiments with palladium cells at SRI International"
    Still making experiments -25 years is a whole researcer life - and which are resuls? Claims, and funds request. Is this your best man?
    What a pity!

  39. Cimpy, If you use 10 minutes to read the Mckubre article I refer to in Current Science above, you will find that he confirmed by experiment the F&P excess heat effect many, many times, all the way from1990.

    You are pretty inventive in Your accusations.

  40. You can easily find thousand of people claiming they saw an U.F.O., but keeping on repeating that will not make it true.
    Story is not different about the alleged "excess heat" - do you know? Among those you reported, for example, were listed also Mizuno experiments. Did you mint to abend at least those one, or are you still counting them among others?
    Point is always the same: no excess out of "cold fusion fan" laboratory.
    What a pity!


  41. The difference between LENR and UFO's, is that there are 1000+ peer reviewed Scientific papers on LENR. But of course all 1000+ are junk , I know.

    "no excess out of "cold fusion fan" laboratory" - So, when any lab in the world choose to test CF, and find excess heat, they immediately become in Your world a "cold fusion fan", and therefore not trustworthy.

    Real Funny!

    Mckubre where not initially a cold fusion fan, but just followed what experiments proved. And made Scientific papers of the results.

    And Dr. Robert Duncan was no believer until he witnessed the excess heat effect with his own eyes when he ran the SKINR at the University of Missouri. And now he starting another LENR Institute at Texas Tech. University. So LENR science moves on making progress.

  42. "The difference between LENR and UFO's, is that there are 1000+ peer reviewed Scientific papers on LENR. But of course all 1000+ are junk "
    Oh no, you got it wrong: the 1000+ peer reviewed Scientific Papers and Youtube videos on U.F.O. are definitely not junk. At least, they are to be considered as seriously as L.E.R.N. ones. Would you dare to say they are NOT peer reviewed? Millions of people saw them and believe they are true. Commissions of peer believers analzed and found no faults. It is well known that Nasa, Dod, Doe and US Navy have heavy interests in keeping secrets on those story. Woud you say it is not true? And based on what, if I can ask?

  43. "they do indicate some caution wrt Rossi"

    Otrageus! With such a clean, honest and reputable man...!

    By the way, any news about his pending with justice? Could we hope enough time passed by, so that no one could bring him in jail nowaday?
    (from http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2011/11/09/fusione-fredda-fatta-casa-bufala-rivoluzione/169534/ )
    L’uomo del miracolo si chiama Andrea Rossi ma, per chi ha lunga memoria, è ancora lo “sceicco della Brianza”, la persona che in 17 anni ha collezionato 56 processi per reati ambientali, accuse di associazione a delinquere, truffa, frode fiscale, bancarotta fraudolenta e riciclaggio. Diversi arresti, cinque condanne alcune assoluzioni e diverse prescrizioni (pende ancora in appello il procedimento per il crack della sua “Petrol Dragon”).

  44. ...Mizuno...

    As long as you repeat fakes and mistakes among unrepeated stuff, how can you hope your stuff will be taken seriously? Go read what Jed Rhotwell (he is a believer, isn't he?) wrote about Mizuno cell, first.

  45. Yes, I know of Jed Rothwell, and his report.


    And this is how science should work. Criticism from a competent scientist, even inside LENR community!

    Mizuno have done many different types of glow discharge experiments last 20 years and different setups / calorimetry. Rothwell report is on one of them. So this does not invalidate all Mizuno experiments. Or as Rothwell states: "These problems probably invalidate the October results, but not other results obtained by other methods of calorimetry."

    And as I said there is as much discussions and disagreements inside the LENR community as there are in any other branch of science. And that is how science should work. And Mizuno might come out the wiser and device improved calorimetry.

  46. "These problems probably invalidate the October results, but not other results"

    "(...) yes, i was found guilty of bank assault, kidnapping, car theft. But you can not prove that, in between, I ws not really honest!"

    Of course.

  47. Cimpy I didn't know of your past problems and you opposing so strongly the Rossi's theory.

  48. "e-cat is not that important in the field of LENR science?"

    Yes, better you start state it clearly, loudly and in as many places as you can: the E-Cat is a scam that will not last very long - three or four year maxiumum, then, but the dumbest, even believers should accept the fact it is a fraud.
    Of course, you will have new toys to tell about as surely working by that time.

  49. Pomp, regarding Your
    "A term I have seen used by defenders of, well, strange or unusual opinions is pre-science. The term is, in my mind a euphemism, trying to imply that it will develop into a proper since but isn't just yet. "

    Pre-science is a name that may be used for all new fields of research, and does not imply anything.

    The term "Prescience" is the pre-step to the main Thomas Kuhn Cycle. It's where all new fields start. If they never develop a paradigm that works, they stay there and eventually become irrelevant and disappear. If the problem they were working on was important, it's taken up by an existing field or another new field.

    In Prescience there is not yet a model of understanding (the field's paradigm) mature enough to solve the field's main problems. The model may be close. It may be promising and thus be attracting plenty of followers. But it's not yet a real science that works. Because it doesn't quite work it's a Prescience.
    Efforts to provide a model of understanding that works eventually bear fruit. The field can at last make major progress on its central problems. This puts the field in the Normal Science step where it tends to stay longer than any other step.

    So where are Cold Fusion in 2015? In my opinion, with the improved understanding of the required conditions to initiate excess heat (repeatability!), and many testable theories proposed, and With increased interest also among Universities worldwide, LENR now are moving into Normal Science.

    1. "So where are Cold Fusion in 2015?"
      and where where it in 2014, when at beginning of that year?
      And the year before? And the year before that one? Exactly where it will be next year and all the years to come while they are coming - "This will be Cold Fusion Great Year" is a mantra I am accustomed to hear every year since at least 2010. You know what? Produce fusion, first, then make it repeatable; and only after that come to speak.

    2. Either you do science using the scientific method or you don't. This has nothing to do with the eventual truth content. In my book string theory is a science.
      Mckubre worked 25 years in the field. Interestingly he starts his paper with explaining how much of an expert he is. And of course with the claim that LENR is "new science". Well, I claim you still need to use the scientific method and LENR seems to have failed for over two decades since I do not see articles in the major (real) journals by, e.g., Mckubre.

    3. Right CimPy. There is a lot of talk about break trough and paradigm shift etc. But first there has to be something to explain. A phenomenon that does not fit into "normal science". Something repeatable that is at odds with our current understanding of nuclear physics. Then we speak!

      This was the case in all the earlier paradigm shifts one so often likes to refer to. A phenomenon like the "missing" aether in space, e.g., that led to relativity theory.

    4. “Either you do science using the scientific method or you don't”

      Excactly. And the CF community has applied the scientific method since 1989.

      BUT: Any new fields of research that challenge accepted truths(!!) will have problems getting through the peer review system, even if the new research are true. Even when they get control over the repeatability, it will still be challenging for the scientific community to accept new paradigm.

      This has been well documented in research, like Thomas S. Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”

      But developing commercial products, may speed up the acceptance….

      Let me also remind you of what Nobel Laureate Julian Seymor Schwinger said of his failed attempts to publish papers on Cold fusion : "What I had not expected was the venomous criticism, the contempt, the enormous pressure to conform. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?"

      And another example Schwinger mentioned “Despite the assurances of theorists that superconductivity could not exist much above absolute zero, that barrier was broken experimentally. Although it took time to get repro- ducible results…..”

      I think Mckubre’s summary is a rather balanced view of the field as it has progressed since 1989.

      Anyhow Mckubre is an electrochemist, so you won’t find papers from him in any physics journals (I believe).

      And may I ask in what “major real journals” would you eventually like to see articles on LENR, before you would “believe”?

    5. T.S. Kuhn is very much misused in such cases. Argumenting with him can go for anti-gravity boots too. As I wrote in the my commetn just above yours: there has to be a fact (replicable etc) to be explained. Then (and only then) can one speak about the need for a revolution or new science.
      In the CF case there is no such thing rather a number of artefacts that CF adherents try to press into "new science" and proudly argue with Kuhn.
      But let me repeat once more and agian: first there has to be some fact or problem to be explained. Like the Michelson Morley experiment leading to the idea of relativity.

    6. Exactly – “a fact to be explained”

      By “replicable”, I assume you refer to reproducibility and repeatability.

      Well, I don’t agree that laboratory experiments need initially to have high levels of reproducibility and repeatability to be “facts” of science. In the beginning they seldom are.

      Like the history of transistors (yes - developed after decades of theoretical speculation, false starts, and precursor devices) . Transistors were extremely difficult to reproduce for many years. Integrated circuits were even worse.

      So CF are pure Artefacts?

      Strange then that mainstream physicists and chemists that have used some their valuable time to investigate CF, find that
      - Yes there are facts that requires explanation – like heat bursts far beyond chemistry
      - No it’s not easily dismissible “artifacts”
      - Yes this is new science and new science of value to pursue

      Like Professor Yushiaki Arata, a pioneer of (mainstream) nuclear fusion research in Japan. Or late Professor Giuliano Preparata (1942-2000), a recognized Italian theoretical Physicist. They were among the brave ones not only to look at evidence outside the precious “real Journals”, but to participate closely in real investigations and yes became ‘believers’.

      Other physicists, like yourself, wait for facts to presented in “real journals”, where (peer reviewers) historically have dismissed and refused CF papers flat out since LENR don’t exists, can’t exist, has to be artefacts, need no investigation, evidently pathological science.

      And the long lived myth lives on -that Caltech and MIT used the “scientific method” to disprove F&P discovery during the 40 days after the announcement in 1989. The fact proves that Caltech and MIT used newspaper articles and TV news to “try to replicate”, since F&P did not reveal details of their experiments before much later. And by that time, mainstream science and journals had turned their back to this field, and never returned

  50. "initially": no of course not immediately the first one. But 25 years and I don't know how many conferences after PF? And still nothing that counts as established fact, acknowledged as a problem to be explained by main stream? In my mind this clearly tells you something. Arguing in some philosophical way with Kuhn can explain away this basic problem of "cold fusion".

  51. Evidence points at LENR as a strong “Kuhn” candidate, for several reasons. Like the many examples of scientists that dared take the step to investigate outside the mainstream, and became convinced. Like the physicist Professor Robert Duncan as a more recent example.

    Yes it has taken 25 years and many conferences (no. 19 are starting on Monday in Padua, Italy). But with the limited resources spent, this would have to be expected. Anyhow in a historical perspective 20-40 years are no time for a new discovery to be recognized, as documented many times…

    An interesting story on Robert Duncan:
    The CBS program “60 minutes” made a program “Cold Fusion is Hot Again” back in 2008 (aired in April 2009).

    During the production they looked for a mainstream physicist to valuate the status of Cold Fusion science. Several “big name” individuals were willing to make an on-camera report based on what they already felt they “knew.” They were not, however, willing to review any literature or travel to see an experiment. But then they found Professor Duncan; an experienced and highly capable experimentalist, former Gordon and Betty Moore Distinguished Scholar in the Division of Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), and a fellow (and life member) of the American Physical Society. More specifically Rob had two qualities that were desperately needed: personal hands-on experience with calorimetry; and an open mind, capable of change, and a willingness (Rob would call it a scientific obligation) to speak out publicly if and when his mind was changed. Which it did.

    1. "Anyhow in a historical perspective 20-40 years are no time for a new discovery to be recognized, as documented many times… "

      But the real goal is to be able to keep on the game for at least 20 more years - you know, it would be a pity to recognize Rossi is a fraudster and E Cat does not work. That's why on ICCF19 you will hear that the 1 MW Plant, orphan of "thermalizing gamma" and "copper transmutations" (as they both do not exist anymore since 2012) but still holding one hundred cats in its inside is working wonderfully in the deep of an IH dungeon...

      Everithing is always perfectly working in believers' words. Unfortunately words are not enough. You can only hope show could go on on behalf of people who say it works.

      Any news on Parkhomov, Proia or Xanthouilis?


    2. Excuses excuses excuses. 25 years, soon19 (!) conferences! Limited resources? FP claim to have done it! Rossi claims! If true anyone can do it in ones back yard! No need for a LHC or something. But still nothing!
      Phenomena first, then we can discuss theory and "paradigm" ...

    3. (the above obviously refers to the post by Lande)

    4. Cimpy, " But the real goal is to be able to keep on the game for at least 20 more years"

      HaHa somebody just said the same thing about hot fusion actually.. Haha

      Which actually was Rossi making this comment :
      ITER and NIF – respectively the european and the US hot fusion concerns- cost tens of billions of dollars, started about 50 years ago, and their results, that in the sixties were waited for within 20 years, have now been delayed within the next 20 years. Normally, every 20 years they are adjourned to the next 20 years, at a price of several tens of billion dollars per batch, entirely paid by the Taxpayer.
      I think that the scientists that work on those concerns are top level Physicists and I am convinced that their work must be sustained. What is difficult to me is to understand what follows: why ITER and NIF are considered positively ( as they merit to be) even if they cost to the Taxpayer billions and billions per year and since half century have produced nothing, not a mere COP 1.1 and foresee to produce something ( as they did 20 years ago) in the “next 20 years”? And why, in contrast, they consider my LENR impossible because what we made ( without a single cent paid by the Taxpayer) is under test ( at our expense) for 4 years ? They say: ” Because the Coulombian Barrier bars the possibility of LENR”, and with this mantra that they repeat since 30 years ago they think to have resolved the problem.
      “Ipse dixit”, or, better, “Ipsi dixerunt”.
      But I want to ask them a question:
      QUESTION: is it more irrealistic the tunnel effect ( obtained and measured in hundreds of peer reviewed experiments) or to confine a hot nuclear fusion’s energy ( the same of a small hydrogen bomb) with an intrinsecally instable magnetic field ( never obtained anywhere from anybody), as they need to do in the donut of the EATER ( oh, pardon the typo, I meant ITER), or ( in the case of NIF) to confine in the volume of a nutshell the energy produced by tens of high power lasers that shoot all their energy in fractions of seconds focused on the nutshell to obtain the fusion by means of the recoil energy?

    5. First, no one said Hot Fusion was "almost ready for the market"; second, no one made joker's tricks with copper or Ni; third, no one invented new physic, like the thermalizing gamma; fourth no one spoke of overunity, nor even that the process was cheap.

      Even you should be able to see there is some difference between lying for years and trying to bet on some process that might (or might not) work as expected. And as we are on this: fifth, who told you I do believe Hot Fusion is a winning beat? It is simply not a fraud from start, which is a lot more of what you can say of E Cat.

      Btw, did you enjoy Parkhomov graph? And how about his bone and secret Rossi Catalyst?

  52. Norman D. Cook and Andrea Rossi have issued an E-cat paper on ArXiv.

    It is clear that the e-cat was developped by trial and error approach ( with Piantelli / Focardi research as basis) and not from some underlying theory.

    It is rather amusing that they also conclude as I did when I had read the Lugano report:
    - that a 0,2% Ash sample is not likely to be representative of the total
    - that there may be some isotopic separation going on with 30 days at High temperatures

    And this is how they for formulate it
    "The over- whelming abundance of 62Ni34 in the ash and the virtual absence of other isotopes might nonetheless be explained as a consequence of the sampling method. Because ToF-SIMS analysis was made on milligram samples obtained specifically at regions observed under the scanning electron microscope to have undergone morphological changes, it is possible that the 62Ni34 isotopes recoiled toward the surface of the Nickel grains."


    "Nickel was found to be encrusted on the internal surface of the reactor, from which a 2 mg sample of “ash” was obtained near to the center of the charge. Starting with an initial charge of approximately 1 gram, it cannot be said that the 2 mg sample was necessarily representative of the entire Nickel charge..."

  53. So, all what you have are:
    Says from inventor and his Company, a lack of explanation and devuces that cannot be tested / replicated outside friendly people. And yes, some basic clownery tricks.
    For sure, next year E Cat will be on the market, as it was already said in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014. How could it not be?
    Happy landing.

  54. And then ICCF19 is over. With 500 participants it had the highest number of participants ever.

    Tom Darden, CEO of Cherokee Investment Group (and owner of IH who bought the E-cat tech) held a speech during the opening, and seemed very focused on environment and clean industry solutions.

    And his speech put their investment in the E-cat in some perspective. E-cat is not their only LENR investment (Worth while to read):

    “….when I was young periodically industrial rivers in our cities would burst into flame due to pollution, and sometimes in our worst polluted cities, people drove with their headlights on during the day. “

    “We need solutions that don’t create pollution in the first place, not solutions that only reduce pollution”.

    “Some people think Cherokee is a real estate company because it owns a lot of property, but our property work is driven by our pollution focus. I saw that we could affect pollution by working with smart scientists at Virginia Tech. We don’t internally have the capacity for scientific innovation — we’re business people, not scientists — but we realized we could find scientists who had ideas.”

    “Between 1985 and the present we’ve invested in over 100 venture or startup companies. These addressed water or air pollution, or grid management; almost none of these were our own ideas, these were others’ ideas.”

    “ I’m the founder of Cherokee, and I’ve been asked to tell you we are the body that created Industrial Heat as a funding source for LENR inventors.”

    “We had invested in 100 startup companies and I had never gotten an inquiry about fusion or about LENR, but then: three in 30 day intervals. We funded two of these groups, and then later, as many of you know, we licensed Andrea Rossi’s technology. Since then we’ve made grants to university groups doing research in this space, and we continue to fund additional teams.”

    “We started Industrial Heat because we thought that LENR technology was worth pursuing, even if we were unsuccessful. We were willing to be wrong, we were willing to invest time and resources to see if this might be an area of useful research in our quest to eliminate pollution. At the time we were not especially optimistic, but the global benefits were compelling.

    We’ve had some success, and we’re expanding our work. We’re collaborating with and investing alongside fellow researchers and developers”

    “This is our simple manifesto: to pass on a world that is better than the one we received. Abundant non-polluting energy, widely available can make the greatest contribution to this goal”

    And to the participants of ICCF19:
    “At the same time, I would like to say how truly sorry I am that society has attacked you for the last three decades. The treatment of Fleischmann and Pons, and the treatment of any of you by mainstream institutions and the media will go down in history as one of the great examples of scientific infanticide . . . this seems to be a dark component of human nature . . . but notwithstanding this longsuffering, you remain faithful to your work. Thank you for your intense focus and contributions in the face of challenges.”

    “We also need not be constrained by our own minds; ironically the expert who proclaimed that flight had achieved its limits in 1921 was Orville Wright, and the expert who declared that fission was not likely (1932) was Einstein.”

    Full transcript of speech here:

    1. ”ICCF19 is over. With 500 participants it had the highest number of participants ever”.

      Whoeee! A great number of people, It is really amazing it has been possible to collect all that people form the whole world with the concurrency of  Chemtrail Conspiracy in same days in Bologna  -in fact, they subtract at least 200 people to the Cold Fusion Followers…Well, luckily you’re about the double in number


      Yes, Tom Darden, CEO of Cherokee Investment Group (and owner of IH who bought the E-cat tech) held a speech during the opening, and seemed very focused on environment and clean industry solutions. It was not really focused on E Cat and Rossi, though. Better say he seemed to be looking for some working solution or might be something that could sound at least promising…


      “notwithstanding this longsuffering, you remain faithful to your work. Thank you for your intense focus and contributions in the face of challenges”

      Thank you for working to exploit gullibility and credulous