Response to Robert Park’s Seven Warning Signs of Pseudoscientific Claims

The following is a guest post submitted to E-Cat World by Hank Mills.

I read a post here which cited seven warning signs of that a claim might be pseudoscientific outlined by Robert Park in a 2003 Chronicle of Higher Education article. Park, author of Voodoo Science, is historically one of the biggest critics of cold fusion and other exotic sources of energy. In my opinion, these seven signs are NOT evidence of a hoax, and are actually signs of someone working creatively to develop a technology despite the opposition that could be faced from the mainstream scientific community.

“1.Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.”

RESPONSE: When most other scientists would instantly dismiss the technology, it can make sense to first make the claims to the popular media. The mainstream scientific community has turned into a cult, and their ritualistic “peer review process” has turned into one of their most dreadful tools of suppression. The general public can be skeptical, but it is likely that some of them will be open minded to the work you are doing. Also, by going to the general scientific community first you can avoid giving the enemy (the cultist in the scientific community) the chance to get a heads up on what you are doing, so they can make up a plan to suppress your efforts. For example, in 1989 the MIT scientists (who were vested in hot fusion research) who were given the responsibility to determine if cold fusion were real, actually had a wake for the death of cold fusion before their testing was done. This is a clear example of them being willing to violate the scientific method for their own benefit. Instead of recusing themselves to begin with for being biased (because if cold fusion was proven to be real they could lose billions of dollars in funding) or at least trying to be impartial, they condemned cold fusion as a hoax before they were even finished with their experiments.

“2.Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.”

RESPONSE: Not all claims of suppression are real. However, some claims of suppression are indeed real. Cold fusion technology was suppressed from the start by MIT scientists, hot fusion proponents, and others. Also, individuals like Robert Park have devoted their careers to discrediting anyone with revolutionary ideas that do not fit into the box of mainstream science. Instead of supporting cold fusion research and other breakthrough discoveries, he has been one of the individuals that have contributed to those technologies being suppressed.

“3.The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.”

RESPONSE: This can be true with some technologies. It is even true for some forms of cold fusion. However, now there are cold fusion technologies that produce huge amounts of excess power, such as Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat. Also, there are many conventional technologies that require extreme precision. For example, scientists have to work very hard to determine if billion dollar hot fusion technologies have achieved a COP over 1. So far, as far as I am aware, they have not.

If hot fusion experiments that cannot produce a COP of over 1 despite getting billions of dollars in funding, why should cold fusion be treated so badly and be given no funding? Cold fusion research can be performed for 1/100th the cost or less of hot fusion. So if hot fusion is expensive and yields no practical results, why should a cheap form of fusion THAT HAS YIELDED RESULTS be dismissed?

The answer is simple. There are biased hot fusion scientists that want to keep their funding, keep their jobs, and do not want their careers to end. So they try to dismiss cold fusion so the status quo can continue.

“4.Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.”

RESPONSE: If anecdotal evidence exists for their claim why should it not be used to back it up, along with whatever other evidence exists? Obviously, researchers should strive to present hard evidence stronger than just anecdotal evidence, but to claim that presenting anecdotal evidence is a sign of a hoax is ridiculous. In many fields of science all evidence is presented, including anecdotal evidence.

5.True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.

RESPONSE: I have not came across this too often. I do hear researchers quoting Nikola Tesla’s statements about free energy, but I think it is a good thing to review what has been said by those people who have CHANGED THE WORLD with their inventions.

6.The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.

RESPONSE: When the scientific community as a whole would try to deny them funding, mock them, attack them, criticize them, and try to suppress their work it would be a good thing for them to work in isolation. That way, they can develop useful products and when they are ready they can launch them. Why let the mainstream scientific community get in the way of progress?

RESPONSE — 7.The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

Why do we think we understand the fundamental laws of nature? We have only been studying the laws of nature for a few hundred years, and it is very possible we are very wrong about them. For all we know, our “laws of physics” could be very wrong! The idea that we understand even a fraction of how the universe works after only a few hundred years is arrogant.

Hank Mills

  • jacob

    Thanks Hank, for a great assessment of the truth

  • daniel maris

    It all depends whether the claims are true!

    It has to be said that mainstream peer-reviewed scientists make bogus claims every day – particularly in the field of medicine where different teams come up with contradictory conclusions all the time (so someone must be making a bogus claim).

    I prefer to see a thousand flowers bloom – and let’s see what thrives. I don’t like the tyranny of peer review which has become a sort of a self-serving facade (a bit like those remuneration review committees which keep voting huge pay increases to CEOs).

  • Hiram

    Sorry, but half of this post sounds like tinfoil-hat conspiracy garbage, and it’s clearly coming from a non-scientist.

    Calling the entire scientific establishment a ‘cult’ is not going to help your cause or win you any converts. It is only going to make actual scientists like myself who are genuinely interested in LENR think you are an ignorant loon.

    As it happens, there are indeed some barriers in the peer-review process that resist radical new ideas, but not all journals – that is why there are many competing journals in any given field. The situation here is not one where the science is being surpressed, but rather that any inventor or researcher working on this technology knows that they stand to make a gigantic amount of money if they succeed in creating a commercially viable machine based on LENR technology. Most work in this area is therefore being done privately. This reasoning is clear and obvious. Appealing to conspiracy theories is completely unnecessary.

    Also, you are being very impatient. Peer reviewed science is a slow process. Science isn’t revolutionized overnight like technology is. The core of science is skepticism, and new ideas must be hashed out and ground through the mill very thoroughly before they are accepted. This is a process that can take years. Even Einstein’s and Darwin’s ideas – the greatest scientific discoveries of all time – took many years to become fully accepted in the scientific community. This is normal and healthy science, not a conspiracy.

    Lastly, you are clearly confusing science with engineering. Rossi is designing and building a machine, which is engineering. He is not focused on *why* his process works. He has said himself he doesn’t even really know what is going on. Scientists, by contrast, would be entirely focused on *why* LENR works. At this point there is mostly engineering being done by inventors, and very little science being done by scientists. It is very similar to the early days of electricity, when the phenomena were evidident but not at all understood.

    • Dr. Mike

      Excellent comment! I concur with you that what we see from Rossi’s work appears to be more engineering than science, however, my guess is that he is also looking at the science behind LENR, but just not reporting what he has learned thusfar. As scientists, we are all impatient to determine the theory behind LENR- quite exciting times!

    • Ash

      This is typically of the wooly headed articles Hank writes over on PESN. If anyone is running a cult, it’s Sterling and Hank, not mainstream science or engineering.

      Also, exactly which field of science accepts anecdotal evidence in research?

      • Ben

        Well, how about the field of medical science? There are millions of examples of anecdotal evidence being presented/mentioned alongside the hard evidence. Like research into all the various diseases, medical conditions and syndromes, genetics, etc, etc.

        If a scientific idea is true, and has hard facts to back it up, it would be surprising for anecdotal evidence to either not exist, or to not be mentioned while discussing the scientific idea in question.

    • Dying is a long, slow process for many people without electricity around the world, too, and I am not sure that when electric power can avert or delay it, regardless of the peer-review situatyion, it should not be quickly implemented.
      Ultimately, I think that was real pressure Pons and Fleischmann were responding to when they went the press-conference route rather than the peer-review route.

    • @Hiram “half of this post sounds like tinfoil-hat conspiracy garbage, and it’s clearly coming from a non-scientist.”

      Your language seems to me to be something of an over-reaction considering what seems to me to be a fairly measured response by Hank Mills. I take it you are a scientist? Mr Mills makes no claim to be scientifically qualified – does this in your opinion mean that he (and by inference all other ‘non-scientists’) are not entitled to any opinion on these matters? Unfortunately it is this kind of arrogance that is resulting in increasing distrust of scientists and the ‘scientific method’.

      You yourself admit that taking a new idea through the peer review process can take years, and in practice the process is far from objective, involving as it does, protectionism, self interest, jealousy, personalities and many other human factors that should have no place in objective science. The Darwins and Einsteins are the survivors, but their contributions to knowledge could so easily have been lost in the process. Who knows what has been lost as a result of biased judgement by scientific ‘peers’.

      You also comment on Rossi, who is primarily an engineer, but Hank Mill’s comments are clearly made in connection with LENR research in general, and seem to me to be generally accurate in this wider context. I do not see any evidence that anyone is ‘confused’ about the difference.

      • HHiram

        >> does this in your opinion mean that he (and by inference all other ‘non-scientists’) are not entitled to any opinion on these matters?

        Everyone is welcome to have an opinion. But in science, your opinion doesn’t *mean* anything. Science doesn’t care at all what you think, it only cares what you can demonstrate with evidence.

        For me personally, of course I don’t think non-scientists’ opinions are as useful as scientists’ opinions – *about science*! Is your opinion about basketball is useful as Michael Jordan’s? Of course it isn’t, and if you thought it was just as useful, well, that’s both egotistical and stupid.

        Also, the notion that Darwin’s or Einstein’s ideas could have been lost is, frankly, absurd. If you even think that is a possibility, you simply have no understanding of what how peer-review and the scientific community actually function. Good ideas don’t just accidentally get lost. They tested. And retested. And retested. And retested. Again, and again, and again. That process takes time and it isn’t perfect, but it is the *opposite* of chance: it is methodical, persistent, skeptical, honest, and it works better than anything else ever devised in human history.

        Those are simply facts. You’re welcome to your own opinion about them, but facts really don’t care how you feel about them.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Hiram: Good post, thanks.

      • atanguy

        Hiram lives in a scientific community that doesn’t exist anymore. Theoretical ideas of Einstein,with his background of reviewer of patents in Zurich, would never be seriously be taken for peer review in any physic journal today.

    • Bigwilly


      These are exactly my sentiments. I do not respond to comments of ignorant or preposterous science establishment because they are absurd. This blog while interesting has many colorful commentors who appear largely on the conspiracy theory side of things or at least have an axe to grind on someone, (big oil, big science, evil bankers, round earthers, asphault tycoons and on and on).

      Thank you for your comments,


      • As a ’round earther’ myself I would definitely grind my axe on an asphalt tycoon, if I knew of any.

        • Bigwilly


          They are hard to find but believe you me they are ubiquitous. They have stifled the flying car industry while remaining hidden.

          Then of course there is the collusion of the clock makers. They have collaboratively set a preposterous limit on the speed of light. Everyone living on the interior of Mars and the ancient egyptians knows that speed of light is infinite. Scientific dogman is holding it back…


    • Criticizing people as wearing tin foil hats does not help your argument nor does labeling someone a “non-scientist,” as if a non-scientist is incapable of rational and fair criticisms of scientists.

      If it walks like a cult and talks like a cult then call it a cult in the hope that it may take a clue and reform itself. If the behavior is nonproductive it needs to be pointed out and eliminated.

      “Appealing to conspiracy theories is completely unnecessary.” I loath conspiracy theories as they are over-the-top explanations that can be better explained by simpler behavior of people defending their turf and funding. But such behavior does happen and dismissing it a just a conspiracy theory is not helpful; the process needs reform not rhetoric.

      There is science being done by scientists but very little public funding has been made available due to the opposition of the hot fusionists. If Rossi starts to make major bucks on a device I am sure he will put a large amount toward firming the science understanding of the process so that he can then take a more rational step forward rather than another Edisionian punt. Rossi’s success will also be the wake-up call for everyone both public and private.

      Scientists are, like the rest of us, human beings capable of displaying of the vanity, arrogance, conceitedness, territoriality, and worst of all hierarchical behavior like the lowest of us. On occasion they need to be asked to try to be a little better than the rest of us.

    • GreenWin

      @Hiram: “…any inventor or researcher working on this technology knows that they stand to make a gigantic amount of money if they succeed in creating a commercially viable machine based on LENR technology. Most work in this area is therefore being done privately. This reasoning is clear and obvious.”

      And are we to assume the researchers, government and academic labs engaged in forms of hot fusion do not expect reward for their efforts? Why are ALL high potential forms of nuclear energy not supported by public funds? Hot fusion’s “father” Dr. Robert W. Bussard claimed tokamak and mag confinement to be an outright fraud.

      More and more it looks like hot fusioneers are the ones wearing foil hats (to keep hair-singing plasma away). No?

  • Pingback: Response to Robert Park’s Seven Warning Signs of Pseudoscientific Claims | ColdFusion, Cold Fusion, Free Energy, Rossi E-cat()

  • Don Witcher

    Great article. One of the sad things about many of the ostensibly reputable and well known scientists that are skeptics of cold fusion is their self proclaimed refusal to even study or read the experimental evidence. By choosing theory over experiment and dismissing it out of hand they are turning away from Science and becoming petty politicians. Robert Park clearly fits this mold. Unfortunately its nothing new and has been a problem all of recorded history.

  • Kim

    Thanks Hank, for a great assessment of the truth


  • psi

    Item #7 reveals the unscientific arrogance that lies at the heart of a belief system like Park’s. It seems that every generation of complacent scientists must relearn this lesson (or not). The history of science shows, over and again, that what is known (still) is only an imperfect and partial representation of how nature actually works. Any genuine discovery will raise multiple new questions. The notion that we now “know” how nature works is an illusion, and few recent episodes in science illustrate this more clearly than the present dispute over LENR.

    As for the elements of suppression via “peer review,” I can assure those who have never experienced this, that it is quite real. When I told my PhD committee Chair that I was afraid I would be criticized for “going to the media” rather than the MLA (the Modern Language Association, the “governing” professional organization relevant to my research), he said:

    “You have no choice. The prejudice against your position from within the profession is so great that your survival requires martialing independent, external ‘amateur’ support.”

    Before my 2001 dissertation defense, he received threats: ‘We will shut down your department if you approve this dissertation.’ The fact is that the individual who curried this message did not have the influence to produce the threatened result. He was an arrogant loudmouth. But he was also in touch with others with real influence who, had they felt strongly enough inclined, might have produced more serious results. I was fortunate to have a PhD committee with some backbone. The people who made the threats, eleven years later, still don’t ‘get it.'”

    Those who think that the witch hunt that was unleashed against Pons and Fleischman in 1989 was about defending “real science” have not studied the evidence. It was simply a modern witch hunt organized by scared and ignorant “scientists” who had apparently learned very little from the history of their endeavor.

    • It’s “marshalling,” not martialing… 🙂

      • Joe, I think if we all picked up on one another’s spelling errors, we would not have much time left for anything else.

        • jacob

          Yes Joe ,i was not going to say anything, but you forgot to edit your own spelling mistakes,sorry it is really unimportant to me if you make spelling mistakes,but Joe you are startng to maake summ goed poinst

          • I’m sometimes mortified by my own spelling errors. I just wish there was “Edit” button in this program setup. I am as forgiving as the next guy, but since this was a rather unique error and the MLA jad a role, I couldn’t help myself. The person who wrote the post may have been making the same error for his entire life, which would be sad. You are the worst speller here, Jacob, but certainly one of the best posters. I hope you will enjoy my forthcoming novella, “The Hole,” which is about LENR and its introduction to society. I’ll let folks know when it’s done. It’s an adventure story, not a theory story.

          • jacob

            thanks,it could be an interesting book,if you are serious about it,make it fiction with a ring of truth,just like Jules Verne style and make it fun to read.

      • psi

        Lol. Freudian slip. Thanks

  • Robert Park is the biggest fraud in physics. He was once the spokesman for the American Physical Society, and he had a column in its monmthly magazine. In that column, which I looked up and read, he calimed acupuncture did not work, that Jesus Christ was just an itinerant healer and that the North Koreans – and this column was dated the day beforte they actually launched it – did not have an ICBM. He is not careful about who he condemns, and not careful about any evidence that might contradict his own ideas. It was because he called up the US Patent Office and got it reversed that BlackLight Power’s theory of hydrinos was denied a patent after it was granted and published! The people who fall into his pathway are like the “important physicist” Peter Hegelstein ran into at MIT recently, who called up a company that wanted to fund more research on the Mitchell Schwartz (sp?) NANOR cold fusion device that has been continuously working in his lab for six months now and got the funding pulled. Such people are not real scientists because, clearly, they are unwilling if not unable to look at all the evidence without bias. Beware of the Robert Parks of this world: they have already denied to the people of the world some of the greatest benefits, such as nearly-free electricity – that they can ever attain. As long as 2 billion people in this world remain without power, he stands responsible for the deaths, disease and other ills that haunt that benighted population.

    • jacob

      So Joe, it is not just Park,there are hundreds behind the scenes that helped cripple’ almost free energy devices’ that have discredited inventers the world over and it has gone on for a hundred years,how much longer can they take us for naive fools,who believe anything that is PEER reviewed,and I guess that makes Park a PEER ,and there are hundreds of PEERs the word over ,who stop
      real progress in science from happening ,and you are right Joe ,this is not just true in the energy sector,but the big Pharm and AMA the Rockerfeller foundation,who give millions to Harvard and Yale and others ,in return get some say in what is being taught to our Doctors to train them as pimps for Big Pharm,and in avoiding real natural healing and cures are responsible for mass murder,and Joe the 2 billion people without power are proof of the intent of our PEERs without conscience.

      So for anyone demanding more proof of LENR or claiming it to be a hoaks,I have news for you,you have to realize and understand the reality and follow the money and read between the lines and read books that are listed to be burned and purged from libraries ,these books contained information that was banned and forbidden,the burning of witches in the middle ages included inventors and natural healers,and it made the world a dummer place to live.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Some people jump through every hoop the social structure has put before them. So, they feel entitled to be right. They rationalize their jealousy as “being responsible”.

        • jacob

          right Alan ,being responsible defending the social structure,they so strongly support,with education you receive credits ,credits are needed to graduate from college or university ,certain amounts of credits are required to take positions in Government,I think,credits equal the amount of brainwashing one went through,many inventors were uneducated and did not know the laws of physics,and built working overunity devices,but could not find support for the inventions they discovered, because it violated Newtons laws,even part of Newtons laws had to be changed before ,he made some mistakes,and it will have to be changed again soon with the inclusion of ether physics.

  • Tom

    The term pseudoscience is baffling to me. How much science is actually 100%, beyond a doubt proven? Robert Park and people who share his views seem to think science is all about the numbers and calculations and so-called proofs. That’s how we interpret science, it’s not science itself. To fully understand anything, you have to question every aspect of it’s existence.

    • psi

      Pseudoscience is not about proof, but about method. And I would personally agree with Park that it exists. The problem comes in when it is defined solely at the discretion of structures of power and pre-existing authority — then the “real” scientists ironically become the pseudo-scientists. In the case of cold fusion, it has aptly been remarked that the orthodox complaint that the phenomenon was not replicable 100% of the time was nonsense. If it was replicable even 1% of the time, then the truly scientific question should have become “under what conditions is it replicable.” Fortunately for the world, not all scientists followed Park’s method of scapegoating the phenomenon just because it was not always replicable.

  • By a quick take I get a “Park score” of 2/7 for Rossi. None of the seven criteria applies fully, but half points for the following: 1 (blog), 4 (evidence is semi-direct), 6 (partial isolation; Focardi), 7 (not change fundamental laws, but science common wisdom).

    Disclaimer: this was only a mechanical exercise, not a statement about sensibility or non- of Park’s measures.

    • jacob

      I do not understand ,what is your ?

      • Are you asking what is my point? My point is that according to Parks criteria (which may or may not be sensible), Rossi is not a pseudoscientist since his “warning score” comes out as being only 28%. I would expect a true pseudoscientist to reach at least 50%.

        • psi

          Interesting exercise.

        • jacob

          ok,thank you

  • georgehants

    There are true scientists in the World who do not want to follow Dogma or “expert opinion” but find the Evidence from open-minded honest research.

    Opening on June 20 in Boulder, Colorado after receiving the highest number of submitted papers (48) in the history of the Society, the 31st Annual Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) Conference has been given the title “Bonfire of the Paradigms” by the Organization committee headed by Cornell-trained entomologist and current owner of a Florida bioelectromagnetics laboratory Dr. Thomas Dykstra.

  • georgehants

    It is probably true that there are no sides in science, unless one has an agenda NOT to follow a search for the Truth.
    There can be Wonderful discussions of opinion based on Facts in any area, Rossi’s JoNP pages are an example of science at it’s best.
    There is only one rational opinion that can be held on any subject, follow the Evidence and do the Research.
    Hide nothing, it is the anomaly that will lead to great discoveries.
    Anybody, no matter what qualifications or position, who does not shout, do the honest research (no matter how slim the Evidence) is no scientist.

    • AstralProjectee

      I totally agree with the part about trying to understand an anomaly to find great discoveries. Hopefully after cold fusion comes out, there will be some real honest debates between scientists as to how they conduct there scientific method. And they can come to some good conclusions on how to prevent this from happening again.


  • andreiko

    De waarheid vandaag is niet de waarheid van morgen.

    • jacob

      that may be a saying,but truth is unchanging,but what seems to be the truth keeps changing.

  • John E

    I lived through a similar ( but of course different ) debate to this while enrolled in Seminary. The opposing mindsets were parallel to what I observe here.

    • GreenWin

      What was your Seminary debate about John? Gnosticism vs orthodoxy?

  • Andre Blum

    This article would have been so much more convincing if Hank had decided to counterattack with either one of the following:

    1) discuss the validity of the 7 signs in general — for example by naming good examples of real breakthroughs that have shown many of the signs


    2) bring arguments to show that the 7 signs do not apply to LENR.

    Unfortunately, Hank has to mix both at will to complete his story. That makes it a weak story.

    • jacob


    • jacob

      excellent post from Hank.

  • Mark

    If Rossi or Defkalion will really market
    a commercial heater with COP greater than 2,
    why we need further research funded
    by taxpayer’s money ?
    Private companies will re-engineer
    the unit in a jiffy and LENR will snowball.
    If Rossi and Defkalion fail, how can we
    trust scientists, who participated
    in the 2011 tests ?… they will be the
    ones responsible for killing LENR.

  • Andrew Macleod

    Ideas that challenge our theiores of the working universe shoud be investigated first! These ideas are the controls of our theories. It seems to me that today’s science experiments goals are to validate our understanding instead of challenge it. It’s like creating an experiment to validate your hypothesis, instead of testing it.

    • jacob

      science is mostly closed minded,the working universe is not understood,it is like solving a math problem with one or 2 numbers missing,like 3 and 8,then only use the numbers 1245679 and there will not be accurate results,if one would consider the ether magnetic vortexes ,the force that spin the electrons,which could be x=3 and add y=8 one may come a little closer to the truth.

      Every body is trying to find out why LENR work,and the answer to why it works is still clearly illusive ,it is just a guessing game and more theories and hunches and more mindless babble.
      The truth may be found when we are Enlightened as to why the universe works the way it does,with all kinds of free energy creating billions of universes,where does that energy come from? my opinion is simple,we are part of a living breathing galaxy ,that is ordained with love and the ether waves are carriers of our own consciousness and our minds are communicating with the Universal Creators will,if one cares to listen to the gently voice that guides humanity by design,not by chance.All is One in the universe we are a little part of of a whole, so love creates and hate breaks down ,you all can create,it you hate ,you create a dense atmosphere and tension,if you love you create utopia,and our senses can pick that up.

    • georgehants

      Andrew, agreed, as our knowledge of the universe has slowly disintegrated to virtuly nil, one still finds experts on the T.V. talking like all knowing gods.
      Science in many areas, is frightened to say the words that open everything to research, “we don’t know,” instead of as Andrew says just defending crazy outdated Dogma.

  • s

    My issue is with the author’s opinion on point 1. Quite a few respected scientists and organizations have given the Ecat the benefit of the doubt and have offered to test it. I read somewhere that it is possible that NASA might have even went so far as to possibly have sent individuals to Rossi’s lab to test an Ecat (might have read this on N.E.T.). As we all know, despite these possible requests and efforts, no independent test of the Ecat was ever allowed as far as any released information shows. One of the reasons given is that people can test the Ecat when it is available on market. Well, it is approaching 18 months since the first public demo and no consumer Ecat is yet available on market to test.

    • s

      By consumer, I mean home sized unit and not the claimed 1MW device.

      • Don Witcher

        Rossi has never promised a ready to buy consumer product would be available before December 2012 at the earliest. He also always qualifies that by saying that all must go well with the certification process and that is out of his hands. Seems like reasonable statements concerning a reasonable development cycle to me. The product is a Boiler and must adhere to strict safety standards which means that as a widespread consumer product it needs to be idiot proof.

        • s

          The link below states that it was claimed the ecat would go into mass production in late 2011. If the link does not appear, go to peswiki and search for: Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator

          This story has gone on for a long time so perhaps you mixe up late 2011 from peswiki with late 2012.


          • GreenWin

            Perspective demands we also look at the hot fusion promise in 1951 of a world of abundant, low cost non-radiative energy.

            60 years and $$250 billion taxpayer dollars later… NOTHING. Where’s Park and James Randi when the real frauds rob us blind??

          • Don Witcher

            He was talking about the one megawatt Industrial plant. As far as we know production of that type of plant did start after the Oct 28 acceptance test of the prototype. Too many people are demanding too much too fast. Development of this type is not done over a free weekend.

          • s

            I’m not going to go back and forth with you, as you may have already made up your mind. The claims seem to be for a COP of around 35 initially. The COP has been reduced to around 6 possibly now. The initial claims seem to be for “mass production” by the end of 2011. It seems that was delayed to end of 2012.

  • dragon

    Well, Andreea Rossi answered positive to this question 4 days ago, so if all is well by December this year, E-Cat (LENR)will not be in the Pseudoscientific Claims area anymore:

    QuestionIs the project still on track (delivery of the first E-cats end of this year)?

    Answer: Yes.

  • Emilio

    Quantum physics seems stranger than LENR, but since it is backed by quantum theory, scientists have devoted considerable efforts to prove it. Since in the case of LENR the theoretical understanding of its principles is lagging, scientists have a hard time with it. Historically, many discoveries have preceeded their scientific explanations. LENR may just be such a case.

    • georgehants

      Emilio, if one does not do the research on an anomaly, then science will not have the information on which to build a theory.
      Whats the point of them crying, we don,t have a theory so it can’t be happening.

      • Antonella

        “Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it’s supposed to do.” Robert A. Heinlein


    • filip

      I’m not a scientist, but LENR ‘might be’ or ‘is’ quantum physics.

      • At some level it is all quantum physics.

  • GreenWin

    Park is likely the misbegotten reincarnation of Irenaeus – the Catholic bishop of Leon who suppressed 30-odd Christian gospels in favor of the four found in the present bible. Park has written his 7 excuses to dismiss new phenomena – Irenaeus wrote 5 books “Against Heresies.”

    Both these men are terrified of uncontrolled knowledge. Irenaeus’ work “Against Heresies” set of the thousand year Dark Ages in which any discoveries not sanctioned by the Church dogma resulted in arrest, torture, dismemberment, death. It is a colossal effort of orthodox repression – perhaps the most ignominious in all Christianity.

    Park has been proven wrong a hundred times over. He is now seen as a lonely charlatan, unscientific redneck, backward and ignorant; for whom we should have only pity.

    • Andrew Macleod

      I have pity for people who don’t have knolage, not for those who think they know it all.

      • georgehants

        Andrew, could you give an example of the lack of knowledge you are complaining about please.

      • GreenWin

        The point Andrew is to expand the ranks of those who admit, we DON’T know it all. Slowly, mainstream science is joining those ranks.

  • Steve Ledvina

    I am a registered Illinois electrical PE with a masters in nuclear physics. I was taught that elements fiss and fuse ti iron. If you do a simple atomic weight analysis using nickel, copper and hydrogen before and after fusion reaction, loss mass is not realizes. Therefore no MC:2 energy, therefore E-Cat is a little unbelievable, but show me.

    Steve MSPE

    • georgehants

      Hi Steve where you taught to question everything and never rely on accepted Dogma.

    • No detailed analysis of before/after composition of an LENR reactor has yet been published to my knowledge, so no-one is yet in a position to say whether or not any ‘cold fusion’ (transmutation) processes actually occur. Other possible sources of excess energy such as ‘hydrino’ production would not result in a degree of mass conversion that could be directly measured.

      However the evidence for a new energy source is increasingly robust (for example, Google Swartz + Hagelstein + nanor). Like the rest of us, Steve, you will have to wait a few more months to find out whether the claims for controllable and reliable kilowatt-level outputs are justified.

      • richard

        Transmutation up to 1% i.e. 10,000 ppm has been measured. There are dozens of claims of transmutation in Infinite Energy articles but 1% seems too high to be contamination.

        Rossi’s claims, on the other hand, are a thin reed to rely on. His past is dubious and his performance in validated (by objective scientific means—see some of Steve Krivit’s articles, New Energy Times) field experiments is poorly supported. He has big claims but precious little objective confirmation.

        Excess tritium has been measured in 100’s of experiments—John O’M Bockris deserves the Nobel prize for first documenting the presence of tritium in LENR experiments.

        Heat After Death has been demonstrated in experiments by Japanese scientists e.g. Arata for years.

        State-of-the-art practice indicates that researchers get excess heat, reliably on demand in a short period of time. They can send the specs to other labs, have them set up the equipment, run the experiments and duplicate the results.

        As far as the conspiracy buffs are concerned, if you don’t think hot fusion scientists have clout just google the integral fast reactor/wiki, a proven technology that would have eliminated the need for hot fusion.

        It just so happens that the program was actively opposed by no other Senator except John Kerry. He led the opposition and used the excuse that it was a threat to nuclear non-proliferation, the direct opposite of what an expert in the field, Charles E. Till said. And who benefited the most from shutting down the IFR (The completion of the research cost no more than shutting down the program—see the writings of George S. Stanford on the IFR)? MIT hot fusion scientists. Am I wrong in assuming that Kerry was just supporting his constituency?

    • Filip

      Nice to have a scientist on board!
      Please stay!

    • Steve Ledvina: If one fuses Ni+H->Cu, one gets energy, 6.12 MeV for Ni62 and 7.45 MeV for Ni64. Fusing proton with almost anything is exothermal. See e.g. CRC handbook for masses of stable isotopes from which these can be calculated.

  • Antonio Ruggeri Dr. Ing.

    Compliments, Mr. Mills,I enjoyed the article and being a habitual frequenter of this site I must congratulate you about the rare quality of the exposition of your point of view in this interesting subject.
    We should stop for a moment to consider that the standard accepted approach to knowledge is wrong, as, when it comes to natural phenomena, we are blind individuals pretending to see the elusive Truth.
    Not only our theories are extremely shallow representations of the physical reality but we have the presumption to affirm that we have discovered “truths”.
    In the other hand, the “engineering effort, which in Physical Sciences, by necessity, is always associated with the search, helps us to proceed and sometimes takes over, even when theory is fuzzy or completely missing, nevertheless is this effort, with the associated promise of economic reward, that fuels today theoric and practical Scientific search since Science cannot be based on “cult” or “belief”.
    I read all the comments, made so far at the end of your post, and I must point that most of them are positive and the comments of the “sceptics and the believers/unbelievers” are day by day becoming an insignificant presence, being replaced by the comments generated through the increasing consciousness of the readers that what is claimed to be happening is really happening.

  • georgehants

    All this talk about Pseudoscience and science I take it means the difference between Truth and falsity.
    There is no difference, as both have to pass the test of open-minded, unbiased, competent research.
    Everything before that, be it an opinion of a dustman or Nobel prize winner is nothing more than Opinion.
    Opinions are worthless as to Truth, only research on any
    subject will give the answers.
    This does not suit many “scientists” for many unsavory reasons, so the last thing they want is research and the Truth.
    Time for science to wake-up.

  • georgehants

    Science has the irrational habit of trying to give a complete picture with incomplete information.
    The theory of evolution can only ever be one of many possible answers that fit the Evidence.
    As Evidence gathers then some theorys will fall and others strenthen.
    Science needs to stop acting as if it where GOD and speak the Truth.

    • You are right, but making generalisations in science is useful because an efficient way to learn about a theory is to map its boundaries of validity. To do that one has to first assume that the theory is generally valid so that possible discrepancies with data become noticeable. It’s not dogma, but part of the truth seeking process. Of course it can be misused, as anything.

      • georgehants

        Pekka, agreed, but it is the misuse that must be stopped.
        No theory is immutable except “Cogito ergo sum”.
        Science must change, to be rid of people who give research results and imply that they apply to one possibility only.
        Science is there to Learn not to dictate an interpretation.

  • georgehants

    If science where not so stupid as to keep printing in textbooks, opinions, such as the universe began with a big bang as if they where an unassailable truth, they would not have to keep defending DOGMA.
    The big bang is a temporary theory with many clear short comings.
    If the Evidence favours one theory at one time it does not mean new Evidence will not invalidate the previous excepted theory.
    OPEN-MINDS are honest minds, closed-minds are always trying to defend something.

    • Roger Bird

      Scientists tend to be philosophically retarded. Is that what you are trying to say, georgehants?

      • georgehants

        Ha, and mentally and morally retarded.
        Truth is a word very alien to many of them, I think.

    • Andrew Macleod

      I don’t think they’re that bad they just need to take their horse blinders off and start looking at things from all angles not just one theoretical angle.

  • Andreiko

    Kan een van de deskundigen mij vertellen waardoor de meeste H atomen geen neutron in de kern hebben ?(is er in het universum een neutronen te kort?)

    • Neutron is unstable, decays to proton and electron in 15 minutes. When temperature was hot at first during big bang, neutrons were common. When it cooled somewhat, some neutrons could fuse with protons to form deuterons. But fusion stopped when temperature dropped further. The non-fused neutrons decayed to protons and electrons. See The fact that the observed deuteron fraction agrees well with this theory is one of the reasons people believe in the big bang model.

      • georgehants

        Pekka, nothing wrong with liking the big bang, it is when it becomes Dogma and the consistencies are denied or hidden that science fails.
        It is just one possibility, until Evidence some how, overwhelmingly speaks for it.
        Even then care must be taken in declaring it the final Truth.
        Cold Fusion may show all classical laws to be gap-fillers.

        • georgehants

          consistencies should of course read, inconsistencies.

      • GreenWin

        As you probably know Pekka – there are many who raise perplexing questions about the Big Bang:

        • It is true that BB models (finite age, hot and dense start) have some problems that people patch by new physics (inflaton, dark energy). The once popular alternative to BB is steady state (SS) cosmology which however cannot explain the detailed properties of the microwave background. Speculatively, perhaps completely other alternatives exist and waiting to be discovered which are better than the BB and SS.

  • Sanjeev
    • Roger Bird

      Very nice, Sanjeev.

    • Filip

      It’s exatly like musicians and composers.
      In science we need composers.
      Composers create, musicians measure.

    • GreenWin

      Prolly it’s the white coats and pocket protectors. What if all scientists wore kilts??

  • Filip

    off topic:
    There was never a satisfying explanation for ball lightning. I was thinking: maybe its appearance could be explaned by a CF process, triggered by lightning in exeptional and ideal circumstances.
    In 1985 there was a theory which explanes a hot fusion process, not exepted because very unlikely. But CF though?

    • georgehants

      Good thinking Filip.
      Of course ball lightning was and still is denied by much of science.
      If you put your idea on a science blog, after they have stopped abusing and laughing at you, one may explain that according to the teachings of Aristotle, ball lightning can never exist no matter how much evidence to the contrary.

      • Jim

        Well now – our current understanding of the state of physics is so perfect that something like 40% of the universe is ‘dark matter’ in order for the accepted theories to ‘work’.
        Just maybe – there’s a tiny bit of room for adjustment to the standard theories for cold fusion and it’s behavior in gravity at the nanoscale – to point us in the direction of a theory that doesn’t depend on anadjustment factor like dark matter to make standard physics work – – – – .

  • GreenWin

    Hank has written a good response to the thoroughly discredited Robert Park attack on cold fusion. Park – retired physics professor of Maryland Univ. has become an embarrassing spokesman for the APS, a prime example of closed-minded adherents to outdated dogma.

    When Park published his book “Voo Doo Science” it was reviewed and critiqued by MIT Professor Dr. Eugene Mallove. Mallove makes minced meat of Park, his bewildering theories, and his hatred of disruptive phenomena. In one passage Mallove focuses on Park’s denial of evidence of Helium in cold fusion experiments:

    “He [Park] complains that no helium-4 results were forthcoming from Fleischmann and Pons by June 1989, ergo, cold fusion is a fraud. Since at least 1991, Park has been informed by fellow APS scientists, such as Dr. Scott Chubb, about helium-4 detection in cathodes and in the gas streams of cold fusion experiments. These independent experiments have been published in the U.S. and Japan in peer-reviewed journals. There is no doubt that Park knows this. Voodoo contains no mention of this data, an egregious fraud by Park on journalists and the general public.

    One of LENR’s great benefits has been its unrelenting exposure of psuedo-sceptics like Park (huizenga, ballinger, parker.) These narrow-minded solipsists have be named and outed for the scientific charlatans they are. Any critic of scientific fraud would assail the ludicrous expenditures of taxpayer money ($$250 billion) on hot fusion – but Park, a supporter of the “Welfare for Physicists” program – is silent.

    Read Mallove’s review (link above) – it exposes the real fraud in the cold fusion story – those who deny it.

  • yeasure

    The e-cat scores on 1 and 6, lightly on 4, and does not rule out 7.

    That is, Rossi works in isolation, makes claims to the media instead of science, and does at least suggest that the rules of nature are different.
    Cold fusion itself scores highly on 3: The effect is so weak it’s hardly a new source of power; it’s possibly a measurement error.

    Funny enough, Rossi, working on his own has made a breakthrough that is not barely measurable but generates six (6!) times the energy input. That’s not ‘noise’, that’s actually commercially viable self sustaining!

    However, Rossi keeps on claiming. Has anyone seen any tangible device so far?
    Is there a website with a ‘buy now’ button? Is there a reputable science journalist who has seen this thing?
    Sadly: No, no and no.
    Just claims. Yesterday it was about the factory, then it’s all about ‘COP’ and then it’s all about 600 devices running for thousands of hours – but do you know anyone who has seen anything, other than Rossi himself?

    So, Rossi still scores on the same points: 1,4,6,7.

    Oh and don’t get me started on conspiracies.
    Seriously, scientists love nothing more than a discovery that turns the world inside out and opens up a whole new field of discoveries.
    The ridiculous claim that they have a vested interest in ‘hot´ fusion is completely absurd.
    After all, how much fun is it to work on a ‘hot’ fusion project that doesn’t go anywhere, having to beg for money all the time, without results?
    If they cared about money, their jobs, and about getting results, they would all switch to ‘free energy’ tonight – if they could make it happen.
    If fusion worked, they would have jobs and money for the rest of their lives; and no-one would care if it is hot or cold.

    Its believers who like to believe in a conspiracy (point 2). Come on. If you were a scientist and you found something totally new that would change the world AND pay you loads of money, you would not try to suppress it so you could keep doing your current job that leads nowhere.
    Conspiracies are an excuse; they just don’t make common sense.

    • GreenWin

      aka doug is sorta off topic eh?

    • Mark

      Excellent summary about e-cat.
      But Rossi and Defkalion give people hope;
      remember ‘hope and change’.

      • Stephen

        Mark you just spotted the key problem here.

        Unfortunately “hope” (as well as “greed”, “anger”, “love”, “fear”, etc) can be a problem when it comes to determine what is most likely true or false… as it gives you problem in being really honest and fair. That’s the main reason why the scientific method was introduced.

    • jacob

      yeasure,don’t worry there is really no conspiracies,it just people like you and me protecting their own interests,Industry and Government have no interest in LENR ,and don’t really want to talk about it or not even look at it,here we have not just Rossi,but hundreds of copycats coming out of the woodwork,even received patents on processes concerning LENR,or just call it cold fusion,even though the public knows cold fusion does not work,but it does.
      but you, yeasure are a new critic here ,who is either defending the established energy sector or don’t have a clue or just plain uninformed,forming opinions and pointing fingers based on what you know,or a victim of clever brainwashing by established dogma. I have no reason to doubt Rossi ,or Defkalion for one minute,they are gearing up for selling these LENR based products,while established Science can not for the world come up with the reason why it works,because they are not working with a full deck of cards,and with their in the box thinking ,can only come up with hunches.
      I just wasted my time with this response

      • Stephen

        Conspiracies at such a large scale simply don’t work… they are just too complex to implement, manage and control, jacob. I think they are highly unrealistic.

        • jacob

          They are not really conspiracies,they are just business as usual

      • Dave

        Jacob you are wrong. Governments in non-oil producing countries would LOVE for the E-Cat to really work. It would be a huge boost to a struggling world economy and would make the Global Warming political debate moot. It could single-highhandedly get many leaders reelected.

  • GreenWin

    Park’s attack on cold fusion exemplifies the worsening problem of “knowledge monopolies:”

    “Minority views on technical issues are largely absent from the public arena. Increasingly corporate organization of science has led to knowledge monopolies, which, with the unwitting help of uncritical mass media, effect a kind of censorship. Since corporate scientific organizations also control the funding of research, by denying funds for unorthodox work they function as research cartels as well as knowledge monopolies.”

    HENRY H. BAUER, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies, Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences
    Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University

  • Stephen

    There exist historical moments when the scientific community can become pretty conservative… I can agree on that. They have happened and they will keep on happening. And surely *some* people can have personal interests in supporting or discrediting one subject or another… and some can even be plainly dishonest. In the end, the community is made up by human beings, with all their normal limitations.

    However, the idea of a conspiracy of the scientific community as a whole is just foolish. This is something that is almost not worth to talk about: it simply does not make any sense, it is stupid and, in practice, impossible. I am sure that the same personal interests of people would immediately destroy the conspiracy as a scientist in general would just love “jump on” anything really new and promising (and serious) and gain fame through it… in particular with something as big as a LENRs technology might be. How big is the share of scientist getting funded or supported directly on indirectly by hot fusion? What about the others? Why would they stick to the “conspiracy”? Com’on…

    I don’t think there exists any decent replacement to the scientific method when it comes to protect us from myths and delusion in general. We should stick to it and convince, with patience and serious evidence, people who are conservative. The rest is not a solution to anything.

    • GreenWin

      The only “conspiracy” is in your head Steve. Why else would you write about it? Immediately below I have cited and linked an article on corporate organization of science written by an Emeritus Science Professor and Dean of Arts and Sciences. Read it Steve, and try to learn something.

  • Anthony

    Point 7 is interesting. Back before the time of Jahannes Kepler and sometime just before the Copernican Revolution, when astrommoers still believed the universe revolved around the Earth, they had to invoke such things as “epicycles” to explain the retrograde motion of Mars as well as the motion of other celestial bodies that was not consistent with what the theoretical model predicted. Epicyclic motion, at least temporarily, saved an otherwise mistaken theory.

    Nowadays, there are similarities. Even though modern theory is able to make predictions to much higher degrees of precision, there are some pretty glaring problems that are solved through such things as “dark matter” and “dark energy”, neither of which has been directly observed, and both of which combined are supposed to account for around 96 percent of what makes up the universe. Also, there is the mysterious concept of “inflation” which is used to explain the arbitrary and sudden rapid expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. All of these seem like patchwork fixes, very akin to “epicycles”.

    And then there is the fact that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are at odds in many important ways. Oh, and there is no physical explanation whatsoever for the fundamental force of Gravity, let alone attraction at-a-distance. Sure these forces can be DESCRIBED. But this is not the same.

    Who knows how long it will take before some yet-to-be-observed critical weakness is exposed.

    • David Turner

      I very much agree and would only add that much of what Dr. Parks says betrays the underlying ego that is always at the root of debates like this. I can’t say I know much about him other than he is the author of a book on how to distinguish real science from voodoo science. I mean everything I hear or read from him gives the impression of someone with a complete lack of real scientific curiosity. A quote comes to mind: “To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.”
      ― Aristotle