More on Alberto Carpinteri’s LENR Theories

Thanks to E-Cat World reader Alain Samoun who submitted the following guest post concerning Alberto Carpinteri, whose theoretical position on LENR in the earth’s crust has stirred up opposition among some researchers in Italy who are asking the Italian Ministry of Education to investigation into his work.

Alberto Carpinteri is not an amateur scientist, he is one of the most well known in his specialty, structural mechanics, with hundreds of publications, he is the head of INRIM, the Italian institute of Metrology.

His presentation at Turin was well documented, very convincing and the result of over four years of experiments based on the study of material compression that exist also in nature during earthquakes, producing nuclear fission and transmutations without radioactivity.

This could explain the reaction of the scientific oligarchy as it shakes many believes especially in physics, geology, cosmogony and biology. One thing to say is that these phenomenons are nuclear fission, not fusion like in the other LENR experiments, they don’t necessary produce energy, but sometimes actually consume energy like when iron transmute to aluminum.

The geological examples given by Carpinteri to illustrate the laboratory experiments results are stunning and are going to be studied in the future by many geologists and cosmogonists to explain the earth and other planets’ evolution including the formation of atmosphere, oceans and even the origin of life. Of course the basis of the physics of these new discoveries has also to be explained. One thing mentioned by Carpinteri is the transmutations that seem to happen in material near a compression test but actually not compressed themselves … A case of energy transfer through quantum entanglement?


UPDATE: Alessio Guglielmi of the University of Bath has written an open letter to Dr. Carpinteri with five questions about his work, asking him to justify his work as a valid scientific enterprise. A Google translated version of the letter can be read here

Alberto Carpinteri has responded to this letter with a post on Google translation is here (Thanks, Ivan!)

  • Camilo

    I can only say that this kind of research is fascinating, and that, as always, when the “book” is challenged by new information, no matter how consistent and well documented, the “priests” react with fury.

  • Camilo

    I also forgot to add that most of the times the new information comes from actual experiments, hence, from the reality, and reality has the “bad habit2 of ignoring theories and complex math models by being itself.

  • Ivan Mohorovicic

    Carpinteri wrote an answer to an open letter posted by one of the researchers urging for an investigation of his work:

    This was the open letter:

    (sorry, only in italian unfortunately)

    • Dennis D

      You can open the link in Internet Explorer or Chome and right click and select Translate… May work in other browsers as well.

  • Robert Mockan

    The Carpinteri observations are completely consistent with transmutation experiments dating back to before 1990. Piezoelectric, magnetostrictive, acoustic, chemical, compression, controlled thermal, high electric fields, and other processes, have all been indicated as able to initiate nuclear reactions.

    Any scientist that continues to deny experimental evidence in this field is not thinking clearly.

    • georgehants

      Robert, the scientific method dictates that “experimental evidence” comes a very poor second to “expert opinion”.

      • Camilo

        Unfortunatley true.

      • NJT

        The Scientific Method should, if correctly applied and followed, should ultimately confirm or deny “expert opinion” and hypothesis on what is being studied? At least one would hope this is the case. Unfortunately in this world – politics, stupid policies and dogmatic personalities can trump even the best efforts of a researcher. MIT comes to mind here…

      • Robert Mockan

        There are several steps to the scientific method. Carpinteri did the first, that is observation, and the second, form a hypothesis, and some of the third, do experiments. The next step, after more experiments, is to prove the hypothesis. Any “scientist” that allows “expert opinion” to derail the application of the method, before the final conclusions are in, is making the biggest mistake possible. That is to allow personal bias to influence the application of the, properly applied, scientific method.

        I say again, any scientist that continues to deny experimental evidence in this field is not thinking clearly. A scientist who does not think clearly, and who attempts to control funding policy because of their bias (or, their so called “expert opinion”), is a dangerous combination. A scientific “Luddite”, so to speak.

        • NJT

          I agree with your statement completely. As a researcher, academic and retired chemist I too find the MIT fiasco’s concerning LENR (cold fusion) particularly disturbing.

        • Absolutely agreed. The degree of petulant groupthink displayed by these individuals is so unprofessional, and so out of keeping with the ‘scientific method’ that they are not fit to claim the title ‘scientist’.

      • GreenWin

        “Luddite: one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest; broadly : one who is opposed to especially technological change.”

        Often due to ego, envy, or financial investment.

  • hydroman

    Before you all get you panties in a wad about “lone scientists etc. defying conventions”!

    A little more info from another Italian.

    • Frank

      One of Ugo Bardis reply in the comments-section I would like to repeat here, because I think it fits also very well to the Rossi-saga and to the small tribe which zealously but uncritically (whithout appropriate sceptism) supports and advocate Rossi’s extraordinary claims:

      Ugo Bardi May 14, 2012 12:54 AM
      Well, gvdr, the problem with this story is the same we have with climate science and other fields. Some people create their own bubble of knowledge, refer only to like-minded individuals, read only the information created by people inside the bubble, and so on. When you try to explain to them that there is a scientific way of studying these phenomena, and that you should mistrust results which have not been confirmed, they immediately consider you an idiot or someone sold to the powers that be.

      You see this Mr. “Alain” who sends me a link that implies that I am a pathological case of self-delusion. What can I answer? There is no possibility of a meaningful discussion with people who think that those who don’t think the way they do are sick

      • georgehants

        Frank, I think that relying on open-minded and unbiased research in all cases and not dumb brained “expert opinion” solves your problem.
        Or do you disagree that unbiased research and Evidence are better than “expert opinion”.

        • Frank

          you seem to have your very own opinion about the vast majority of scientists.

          I don’t consider them all (maybe just a few are) for “closed minded”.
          If a scientist would see a chance to change the world for better – even by a new, controversal theory/development, I’m sure he would do it. – Believe me, scientists love their children too … and don’t want nothing more than to give them a better world.

          • georgehants

            What science does not need is “expert opinion” above research and Evidence.
            If you disagree please make your point plainly.
            The rest of your comment is undecipherable.

          • GreenWin

            Unfortunately Frank, a man’s love of children will drive him to protect those children. And $$$ have too often made doctors and lawyers dismiss good evidence. Same with scientists.

      • Ugo Bardi’s comments are a fitting indictment of establishment cliques that oppose anything that contradicts their own fossilised views.

  • PJ

    The paper listed above:

    I am a biologist, but the paper is quite accessible for (I believe) even non-scientists to read. Those who criticize the man should address the content of the paper, and refute with experiments– not opinions.

    Carpinteri is doing this one of the correct ways. Publish and let people comment, criticize, or compare their experiments to his. Rossi is doing it the other way– make something that works, and damn the critiques.

    Maybe the Italians are about to lead us into a second Renaissance…

    • The parallels with Wegener’s ‘continental drift’ theories seem pretty close. To anyone with an open mind, it seemed obvious that Wegener was right, yet the full might of ‘esatblishment’ geology was thrown at him for years. Then suddenly, the theory was accepted and became part of the established world view.

      Planck was absolutely correct: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

      Hopefully this could now be modified to read “…but rather because its opponents see which side their bread is buttered”, i.e., ‘scientific opinion’ will simply follow commercial and political requirements in due course.

  • NJT

    The ‘Priests” to whom you refer apparently refuse to recognize that this universe has much more to offer up than their humble little brains could ever comprehend. They will someday very soon be TAUGHT a hard lesson it appears…

    • NJT

      Hmmm, this comment is in reference to Camilo’s comment below…

      • Camilo

        Agreed, and don’t worry, sometimes one has to read all the posts to figure out whos’s talking to who.

    • GreenWin

      Even the high church eventually had to accept Copernicus. We ARE seeing a paradigm shift that will publicly reprimand the closed, narrow mind of many.

      • In the scientific community, that will only be the ones who are not fast enough and slippery enough to see which way the funding is blowing.

      • GreenWin

        Point taken. And perhaps it is not for us to question the past of the new breed of CF scientists who will receive abundant funding.

        They will, like Nazi scientists before them, be miraculously “rehabilitated.”

  • contrast

    Interesting point of view on the state of Italian science. 800 million euro grant for a shady business with family connections in the military and parliament… based on pseudoscience by a technician who usurps a professor’s title.
    Nice. Rossi looks like a lamb compared to this.

    • contrast

      This was intended as a response to hydroman’s post at 4:44 pm

    • Ivan Mohorovicic

      Beware, I would suggest you to not trust too much Bardi on this story, because he is, together other “high priests” trying to make up a case on nothing. Some of these people have connections with the mainstream media and have been able to hype up this story to the point that it reached the english-speaking LENR/Ecat blogosphere.

      From what I understand from direct sources on the opposite side of this fight for example, there haven’t been such grants. The skeptics (Bardi et. all) happened to find a draft document of a funding proposal/hypothesis on a website vaguely affiliated with piezonuclear research and tried to spin it as a request for state funds.

      I have just slightly more than basic italian knowledge to be able to confidently tell you more details, but I’ve been following this for a while and from what I’ve seen it’s clear that there are ongoing cheap attempts of “character assasination” and facts spinning that have nothing to do with science.

      • contrast

        Ivan, I appreciate your input. My comprehention of Italian is limited to a few words 🙂
        If the whole issue has to do more with politics and money than real science then perhaps an official investigation is required after all. It might help to clear up the muddy waters and restore integrity in Italian scientific community. It doesn’t seem like a desktop project founded out of petty cash account any more.

        • If you are insider in science you KNOw that science reality is very near to politic in it’s real working.

          My dear worked first in research, then in politic, and this was a good training, because backstab in science are common.

          If you read the books of Wade&Broad (betrayers of the truth), or read the data of climategate 1/2 leaks, you see what really is science, science administration, peer-review battles…

          also science is still based on a mythology , started with Poppers, that replication and peer-review is the key.

          in fact there is no incentive, a negative incentive, to replicate experiments because only novelty is paid.
          also peer-review only filter unimportant mistakes. most of peer-review is accepting your friend papers en rejecting your opponents papers. reading the paper is uncommon. like parliament voting is.

  • hydroman

    So for you that research is fascinating?
    So what other research do you find fascinating?
    And because You find it fascinating you want to dump some money into it?
    I would say the “book” is rewritten all the time.
    And your “priests” probably change into villains and vice versa!
    Alas the Scientists who work outside of “mainstream Science” are usually the ones who work outside this universe. In a universe where proof is not needed and replication unnesessary!
    As Spock would say “I find your logic fascinating”!

    • Camilo

      Any research is fascinating as long as it provides new knowledge and new answers to old questions. Wether it is this “piezo nuclear” or new nanotechnology membranes for desalination of water that let pass more water that they “should” as “predicted” by thermodinamics, or the strong relationship of food with the upkeep of health, etc. etc. What I find not fascinating is the ease with the experimental evidence is questioned and dismissed when it does not support the prevailing theory. There was a time when the experiments were constantly used to find new information, and science advanced greatly, but it seems that by now they (experiments) are regarded as a poor brother in science. “It is there but we can safely ignore him”.

  • hydroman

    intended as response to camilo.

  • Don Witcher

    The introduction of experimentally derived endothermic piezo nuclear phenomena into the LENR controversy reinforces the possibility that Physics may be facing a major paradigm shift. Thomas Kuhn introduced the term paradigm shift and a writeup on him is here . A condensed exposition of his thoughts are contained here

    At the risk of saying the obvious I think that “The AtomUnexplored” conference was carefully named,organized and presented to generate the controversy that has ensued. Stay tuned.

    • GreenWin

      Interestingly Dr. Peter Hagelstein revealed how a “famous physicist” at MIT torpedoed his third party funding to replicate Piantelli’s work. The famous physicist also bad-mouthed Peter’s work and jeopardized the jobs of his funders.

      THIS is the kind of self-indulgent crap that will come to an end – one way or another. It is not science. It is not art. It is unprofessional, infantile behavior driven by envy and fear.

  • Camilo

    All this stuff made me remember a person that some of us had known online while following another saga. He was a materials engineer who had derived a whole theory of everything from his experiments with the resistance of concrete. I wonder how he might read all the data of Mr. Carpinteri.

    • Camilo

      I have not received a message from this list for a good while. I hope Frank Grimer is ok. He was always quite logic in the ways of relating every experimental result, be it new or classic, as a evidence of the existence of the beta atmosphere, “the atmosphere that holds atomic scale materials together.”

  • John

    The problem with all of this cold fusion stuff is that it is too unreliable. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. I accept that something is going on but scientists are like people, they can’t be bothered trying to get an experiment to work over and over again, with little chance of success.

    This is why I have trouble accepting what Rossi is saying. He’s said that his trial has run for a couple of weeks or so.

    I know that some believers will say I’m wrong etc etc, so please tell me where I can *buy* a working cold fusion machine. I’m not talking about the e-cat. Just something that eeks out a couple of milliwatts is fine, but for a period of longer than 100 days. I’d be willing to buy one, definitely. I accept that cold fusion is a definite process but the nuclear gods have deemed it can’t be seen as reliable.

    • GreenWin

      Publications by the Italian ENEA (dept Energy) claim their collaboration with U.S. Naval Research Lab, Energetics Ltd, SRI Intl., and DARPA have consistently replicated D+D in Pd and anomalous heat.

      You know you cannot buy anything but you certainly can watch Barry’s video published here documenting MIT’s Hagelstein NANOR experiment running for 4 months+ – delivering milliwatt excess energy.

      NOTE: some of the skeptics sound awfully didactic – in a calculated kinda way.

    • theBuckWheat

      “The problem with all of this cold fusion stuff is that it is too unreliable. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.”

      You have things completely backwards. The problem with all this “cold fusion stuff” (anomalous heat production without neutron flux) is that the underlying atomic and sub-atomic physics are not yet fully understood. Without a sound operating theory, people are taking educated guesses that sometimes hit the mark and sometimes miss.

      As a result, when they build a device that “works”, it does so almost by accident, even if someone else can reproduce the phenomena. But with every passing day, the knowledge gained by these experiments (both successful and unsuccessful) help researchers to see what mechanisms are at work.

      Until then, IMO, the danger from devices like the eCat, will be that sometimes they will behave in ways that nobody expects or can explain, at least for the time being. My concern about the eCat is not that suddenly might stop working, but that it might suddenly start working far more efficiently than anyone expects!

      As time passes all these things will become understood and we will make progress toward a working and safe device even at a faster rate. We have certainly come a long way from Ponds and Fleischman’s unwise and premature announcement.

    • Replication exist, like Iwamura and SPAWAR protocol.

      the mythology of “not replicable” is still alive.

      the real problem of LENR is that since there is no mainstream explanation of the way it works (despite the condition as SPAWAR explain is well identified), mainstream reject the facts, teh eevidencve, the researcher, the replication…

      the “not replicable” excuse is false since 1 decades.

      most of the proble with replication is that nobody mainstream wan to replicate honnestly, and as Wade&Broad explain, when they replicate, the alter the protocol to create novelty, and break the working condition.
      and when finally it works, the replicator became a believer and is thus a bad scientist, whos opinion have no value, and that cannot be published because all peer-revew reject.

      no conspiracy, just classic science in the real world.
      don’t blame the conspiracy is you can blame the stupidity.

  • contrast

    Maybe a paradigm shift is coming. But another possibility is that this will become just another chapter under “pathological science” in future textbooks. So far there doesn’t seem to be any confirmed experimental results. Could Carpinteri have personal financial interest in promoting this piezonuclear stuff?

    • GreenWin

      See Robert Mockan’s comment below June 9, 2012 at 3:10 pm – there is a large body of experimental and observational evidence.

    • Don Witcher

      At the present time I don’t see any way to exploit the phenomena being described by Carpinteri for monetary gain. The energy requirements are huge and the number of endothermic transmutations are small. They only become significant over geologic time and with forces available from geologic processes. However as has been stated in the post, confirmation of this phenomena by other researchers will have an enormous impact on scientific thought.

      Carpinteri and his collaborators have put a lot of work into the these experiments and have documented them well. Its time for the intelligent and objective skeptics to get to work in the lab instead of just blowing hot air.

    • psi

      What Greenwin said. Your speculation about personal financial gain is preposterous, not to mention insulting to the integrity of a remarkable scientist, and shows how poorly you comprehend the actual sociological dynamics of the debate.

      • financial gain is often not the problem, just fame, funding and group delusion linked to that.

        about integrity history show how most remarkable scientist can be totally dishonest, especially to kill opponents, if not to fraud results. see Newton, Edison.4Moreover even with real honesty, group delusion, trust in recognized scientist, cause awful effects like the electron charge story, N-ray, …

        in some domain, where funding is important, 40% of scientist admit to have eliminated bad results,a dn 10% to have faked (source wade&broad book).

        welcome in the real world.

  • hydroman

    To camilo jun 9 9:09 pm

    We are constantly getting new Scientific breakthroughs.
    I do not understand your point What “experimental evidence” is being dismissed?
    The thing about experimental evidence is it must be “reproduced” by someone else that is called “replicated”!
    And yes before someone else replicates it, it may indeed be called “horse puckey” just kinda the way its played out.
    If it offends your sensibilities go to another universe where every whim and fantasy is investigated to the max!
    We will call it “fascinating land”.

  • Moacir Cunha

    The academic oligarchy is disgusting.

    They remind me of the Catholic Church in the 16th century, with its “absolute truth” and the Inquisition.

    The Church burned Giordano Bruno at the stake, because he questioned the “absolute truth” of the Church.

    The modern day academic oligarchy is not very different, and they would burn people at the stake if they could…

    • Andrew Macleod

      It’s funny how the church used to oppress science, now science oppresses itself. One phrase comes to mind that every scientist shoud live by.

      We don’t know what we don’t know.

      • first of all, about galileo the accusation was that Galileo was using it’s (good) theory to deny the Love of God to Humans… Mix of politic and science is the source of the drama. (like Joan of Arc was burns for having mixed politic and religion).

        second the Church was a big provider of research at that time. It was a was between scientists.

        Good example, no change.

        see how our Apocalyptician Church use science and terrorize opponents , being right or wrong, but using clearly stinky methods, very similar to Catholic church at Galileo time.

        other time, same people.

        • GreenWin

          “Other time, same people.” Making time, meaningless;)

        • Andrew Macleod

          Yes what you say is true however the scientific community would prefer to say “it’s impossible” then “how it’s possible”. The tone is changing with more evidence, 20 years later.

          • Mark

            You know, if one of these companies that are about to “change the world” would *just* let some reputable people run some simple tests to validate their LENR claims then all of the “church” of evil, opressive scientists would be shot down.. It’s a simple concept really…

          • Roger Bird

            There is no requirement to verify. The skeptics can rant and rave all that they want. But they can’t force someone to quit or verify. The marketplace will verify.

      • Mannstein

        You forgot to mention that now certain scientists and polticians oppress the church in the name of the Enlightenment.

  • I linked a headline in The American Reporter to the first version of this post, which intimated strongly that 750 Italian journalists had charged ‘cold fusion’ researchers with causing earthquakes, apparently those that recently struck near Bologna, where Rossi is located. I thought the post – or at least that part of it that quoted the scientists in broken Italian – was confusing, but IO was more dismayed to learn the concerns raised were no longer part of the post. I would like to see the post restored with the earthquake issue stated and clarified.


  • Pingback: Piezonucleare: Carpinteri risponde agli scettici - Energia, Nucleare - GreenStyle()

  • Pingback: Sobre la Teoría de Alberto Carpintieri » Fusión Fría()