Will Pons and Fleischmann be Vindicated?

It no longer seems that we are dealing with the question of whether LENR/Cold Fusion is real or not. Regardless of what you call it, there is a growing body of evidence that unexpectedly large amounts of energy can be produced from some kind of non-chemical nuclear reaction in a desktop environment — exactly what Pons and Fleischmann announced in 1989. While there is certainly room for debate about exactly what might be causing excess energy production, it is difficult to make a rational case that it is not possible to find a cold fusion effect at all (which has been the prevailing opinion in the mainstream scientific world since 1989). One need only browse the Library at LENR-CANR.org to see hundreds of research reports that indicate that over the last decades many researchers have been able to detect a real cold fusion effect and that LENR is a legitimate field of scientific inquiry.

Slowly, public, academic and media perception of the cold fusion/LENR field seems to be changing. We are now seeing LENR discussed more openly and more frequently by people from respected institutions such as NASA, MIT, the U.S. Navy, University of Bologna and other places. Some of the stigma associated with working in the cold fusion field seems to be wearing off it seems, as scientists are willing to publicly discuss their work and interest in this area.

And of course we have Andrea Rossi involved in the most ambitious LENR project to date — bringing his E-Cat into the homes of people around the world as a practical low-cost source of heat and (eventually) electricity. Rossi’s contribution, if his goal is achieved, would be by far the most significant of all. He has said that his only interest is to create working products — working in the laboratory and writing scientific papers holds no interest for him. Science is really only beneficial to the human race if it has a practical application, and Rossi wants to be the first to do that with LENR.

If Rossi is successful in his quest the world will certainly change, and we will no doubt see huge amounts of interest directed into the LENR field, and research and development in the area will explode. In time we could well see Pons and Fleischmann’s contribution to the world of science re-evaluated and be considered one of the most important in history.

  • morse

    They already have.
    The facts are there, LENR is real.

  • Gordon Docherty

    (over from the comments page)

    Thought you might like to know – on the BBC website there is the announcement of the merger of Glencore and Xstrata. So what? Well, Glencore is one of the biggest players in buying and selling commodities and Xstrata is a large mining company – one of whose main extraction products is nickel… Now, what does the E-Cat use again, and what have the mainstream NOT been talking about? Time to join up the dots, I think…

    • Even if everyone in the world owned e-cats the price of nickel will not fluctuate very much. Nickel is a lot more abundant than oil. Nickel is the fifth most common element in nature, and hydrogen is the first.

      If someone wanted an investment opportunity Nickel would not be the right one. Maybe magnets? Electrical generators use magnets.

      • Camilo

        I was thinking the same, AlNiCo magnets might seem a much more plausible explanation for a rise in nickel price. Anyway, most meteorites are made of iron an nickel, so it literally keeps falling from the sky…

    • Steve Robb

      The amount of nickel used in the e-cat could be supplied by the present extraction processes that produce nickel as a by-product. There will not be an increase in the price of nickel nor the incentive to open a nickel mining operation simply because of the e-cat. The major use for nickel will continue to be as an alloying agent of steel. I suppose that if the e-cat displaces all the other sources of energy X 10 there will be an increased demand for nickel due to increased commercial activity overall.

    • atanguy

      Don’t make too much of this as, if our information is correct, LENR uses a very small quantity of Ni, most of it is recycled in the Rossi system. If you really want to buy Ni, store the Nickel coins, don’t buy the stocks ;=)

    • Roger Bird

      There will be a bubble, certainly; and then there will be a bust when people discover how little nickel is used in a potential LANR device. Buy low, sell high.

      • You hit the proverbial nail on the head.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Go short nickel and long crow (new skep diet).

  • timycelyn

    I really, really hope so! Leaving aside the really important stuff – like how this will change the world completely – as far as P&F are concerned:

    1. A joint Nobel Prize (Physics or Chemistry, I don’t care);
    2. Public sincere apologies from those who innocently hounded them back then;
    3. Academic recognition eg. “The Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman LANR Department” at MIT or wherever
    4. Those that fabricated results, hounded them and covered up the facts, should be pilloried and subjected to at least the level of public opprobium and career destruction that these two heroic trailblazers suffered…

    • atanguy

      Maybe someone here can write a letter addressed to the MIT physic department with the same content, that we can all sign.

    • AstralProjectee

      I agree. But that should not be expected until table top transmutation can be done and replicated in more than one university.


  • Gregory P

    Look at the ETF JJN, It seems to rise up in correlation with the trending of the search terms “Rossi LENR” on google. At this point it would be hard to prove a correlation, but over the last 2-3 months there seems to be. I doubt the traders are not aware of the elements used in the LENR process.

    • timycelyn

      Sorry, Greg. Sounds interesting, but I’m a simple soul and don’t know the acronyms you are using. Could you expand a little?

      (And yes, I do know LENR before anyone asks!!)

      • Robert Black

        ETF is electronically traded fund. JJN is symbol for the Dow Jones index for the price of nickel (used in Rossi’s e-cat) The poster is saying that rise in the nickel index and the rise in interest (vis a vis google searches) of Rossi’s e-cat–track each other.

        • timycelyn

          Ah – thanks very much. Got it!

  • sapain

    time to give F&P a few over due nobale peace metals each before it is to late, and a mountain face of their own.

    • clovis

      I will agree with you, and i always thought they got screwed. and that they were brilliant men. surly history will vindicate them.

      • Stefan

        It is a good lesson to others; build your own fortune ignore the common good; so many naive soils have wasted lives in vain. Once you make money you may please yourself doing something for common good if you still want.

      • Pipmon

        but not anywhere near as “surly” as that Charles Ponzi guy!
        Hey Charles why don’t you enlighten us with a list of your tremendous achievements over the last 20 years?
        By the way “Charlie” it’s ‘shysters’.

  • Pingback: Will Pons and Fleischmann be Vindicated? | eCat Now! – Rossi eCat News()

  • If you watch the recent 60 minutes show about P&F you’ll notice they claim their biggest mistake was giving in to University of Utah pressure to prematurely make the announcement. The fact is that they did make the announcement. And the UofU hung them out to dry. You would think that nobody would repeat this mistake. Along comes Dr. Zawodny. He did not make the famous NASA video at gunpoint. And yet later he claims in his own defense that he saw the video but didn’t think it was going to be released. Well what did he think? That it was going to be shelved in the NASA archives and nobody would ever see it?

    It is time for scientists like P&F, Rossi, Zawodny, et al to stop jerking people around. Either put up or shut up. Certainly don’t ask for any mercy from me.

    If P&F come out and show a working model of their little cold fusion gizmo, they’re vindicated as far as I’m concerned. Otherwise they’re a bunch of losers.

    • When LENR is validated, Pons and Fleischmann will be vindicated. There is no need for them to personally prove anything more than they have proved. Pons and Fleischmann will go down in history as the discoverers of this new technology (by whatever its name.) While I think that Rossi will also deserve one, Pons and Fleischmann will get the physics and/or chemistry Nobel, or they will be hearing from me personally. (I can feel them shaking in their boots now.)

    • Roger Bird

      I thought that you changed your handle, Charles Ponzi?

      • I was Thomas Edison like you suggested until I got a call from Edison this morning. They said I have 6 months to finish my construction project or pay $1600 fee for not connecting to permanent power. The power companies have us in a pickle. That makes us all the more vulnerable to sheisters like P&F, Rossi, and Dr. Z. et al who say they have something then don’t come through.

        • Funny! Doesn’t prove nothin’, but funny!

        • Roger Bird

          Charles Ponzi, I don’t understand saying that P&F are sheisters. Their case has been proven for them. And you can’t prove that Rossi is a crook, so, to be fair and scientific, you should not be talking that way. I admit that Rossi is still on probation, But LENR is proven.

    • Hehe, maybe he thought they would go the same shelf as the Moon landing video’s from the seventies went… 😉

  • If we are to survive and prosper somehow we must get past the irrational ignorance. This was a sad tale of baseless accusations and a folly of policy choices because so and so might say so.

    Europe had Japan did fund more basic research
    in the 20 years but somehow they did to get to
    the practical and beneficial useage of this knowledge.

  • Vindicated : yes, yes .,

  • Mike Cheek

    If my memory serves me right (it’s been a while since this happened!), Texas A&M sought to duplicate Pons & Fleischmann’s experiment, and reported in great detail what they did and that they could not replicate it. They also offered what I remember to be reasonable explanations for the phenomena observed at the time. I believe other labs sought to replicate it as well but could not either. If an experiment can’t be replicated, well, it’s back to the drawing board. Nothing evil in this. Now, how you treat people afterwards, that’s different. I’m afraid the media had a field day with this, as best I remember. That part was regrettable.

    • Warthog

      Your memory serves you badly. The Texas A & M effort (run by the world-renowned electrochemist John O’Mara Bockris) was completely successful in duplicating Pons and Fleischmann, producing excess heat and measurable amounts of tritium. The response of “mainstream science” was a massive witch-hunt the discredit Bockris and his results.

      Bockris remarked that he tried to get other researchers to visit his lab and examine his results……no takers.

      The “unsuccessful” efforts were electrochemical experiments done by PHYSICISTS at MIT, which purported to be unsuccessful. It was later discovered that the MIT researchers HAD SUCCESSFULLY REPLICATED Pons and Fleischmann, but had CHANGED THEIR DATA to show failure. IOW, the first (and thus far only) proven FRAUD in the field of LANR has been from the folks claiming that it was a hoax.

      • Mike Cheek

        Warthog … thanks for the reply. I will certainly need to go back and review things. I was writing strictly from memory. As they say “of all the things I’ve lost, I miss my mind the most.”

    • Alain

      there was many test, with various protocol, many winth bad condition. anyway many succes, and some fraud, I mean like MIT pretending a failure which was a success. by the way even F&P rejected some results (on He4) to please theit hierarchy… wrongly

      by the way,
      spawar explain many cause of the initial nonreplication in their conference.

      sadly there is, like with students in lab work, a tendency to ignore and bend results that don’t match the expected, except when it is funny or going into the “socially demanded”, like when people invent false correlation between disease and technology…

      my interpretation is that in 89, not only LENR was unexpected, especially fusion, but easy energy was not a social expectation.
      we could not imagine easy energy.
      technology disease, yes, expensive energy yes,dangerous energy yes,easy energy, no.

      you find what you expect.
      depressive civilization don’t expect good things.

  • AstralProjectee

    Many see Pons and Fleischmann’s experiment in 1989 as useless. Even aging Martin Fleischmann said something like: “it was a wasted opportunity.” But I don’t see what they did as useless. Since then we have had some scientists working on cold fusion because of Pons and Fleischmann’s experiments. And some rightfully questioning our current understanding, according to the excess energy in their experiments. Some making more progress than others. In the end I’m pretty sure we will have something in the market soon that will revolutionize the energy landscape.


  • jack

    Instead of buying into nickel it would be better to short the alternative energy sector especially wind turbine companies and solar power (guaranteed 10 bagger).

    • dsm

      I read a report some months ago that Denmarks leading wind turbine company is seeing a slump that may harm Denmarks success as a wind turbine exporter. I have no idea if it is in anyway connected to the LENR phenomenon. But I did wonder.

      Doug M

  • Wes

    Researchers (P&F, Dr. Randell Mills, Navy SPAWAR Group, Piantelli, Focardi, Rossi, and others) have spent decades demonstrating LENR as a novelty in the field of energy generation. Productization (if possible) eludes us because LENR is not understood. Pharmaceutical labs spend billions in research, only to isolate the properties of a chemical whose benefit was uncovered by trying hundreds of millions of combinations, until one works. Lacking an effective LENR theory with which to convert the LENR novelty into a product, the Pharma approach seems like the only alternative. Did the “garage” inventors Rossi and Defkalion “get lucky?” We could be waiting a long time to find out. I propose that the major energy consumer nations should form a joint research effort on a mega scale to get the job done. A US-China-India global project could get this done… before the next Ice Age.

  • AstralProjectee

    Something a lot of people have not thought of would be the possibility to convert mercury into gold, which is possible with lower energy prices. Besides the price of gold is high and keeps going higher.


  • Mumtaz

    God given Rossi a valuable gift.

  • Pingback: Will Pons and Fleischmann be Vindicated? | E-Cat World « Sell Scrap Nickel()

  • Mark

    Will Fleischmann and Pons be Vindicated?
    Conceptually yes, but technically no.
    F&P scientific goal was provide an experiment
    that demonstrated conclusively the reality
    of CF. Additional evidence that it was real
    was not success at that goal. Rossi has
    arguably only now, partially proven LENR.
    F&P CF method was centerist on all CF evidence
    to date. Rossi’s is not.


  • Fleischman and Pons made a huge discovery whatever it was, they didn’t deserve all that discredit. Vindication!