Another LENR Meeting: at American Nuclear Society Conference

The American Nuclear Society is a non-profit organization which provides educational and informational services for professionals in the fields of nuclear science and technology. The ANS is holding its 2012 ANS Winter Meeting and Nuclear Technology Expo in San Diego, California from November 11-15, and the theme of this conference is “Future Nuclear Technologies: Resilience and Flexibility”.

Although the primary focus of the conference are topics connected with nuclear fission, there is a session listed this year sponsored by the Society’s Materials Science and Technology Division (MSTD) that will focus on LENR. The title of the session is “Discussion of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions — Papers/Panel” The program for the session taken from the conference program is listed below.

The Big Picture of Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research, Steven B. Krivit (New Energy Times)

Electroweak Neutron Production via e + p → n + ν and CaptureDuring Lightning Discharges, Lewis G. Larsen (Lattice Energy LLC)

Slow Neutron Generation by Plasma Excitation in Electrolytic Cell, Domenico Cirillo (Cirillo_lab)

Transmutation Reactions Induced by Deuterium Permeation Through Nano-Structured Pd Multilayer Thin Film, Yasuhiro Iwamura, Takehiko Itoh (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.), Yasuko Terada (Japan Synchrotron Radiation Research Institute), Tetsuya Ishikawa (Coherent X-ray Optics Laboratory, SPring-8/RIKEN)

This session will explore the surprising possibility that highly energetic nuclear reactions and elemental transmutations result from low-energy nuclear reactions (LENRs). Although the term was not used a century ago, examples of LENRs go back that far. LENRs are weak interactions and neutron-capture processes that occur in nanometer-to-micron scale regions on surfaces in condensed matter at room temperature. Although nuclear, LENRs are not based on fission or any kind of fusion, both of which primarily involve the strong interaction.

From this listing it appears that this session will focus on the weak force/neutron capture theoretical framework that is at the heart of the Widom/Larsen theory (with Larsen himself presenting).

It’s interesting that the ANS is willing to sponsor such a session — and it might be another signal of professionals taking the area of LENR more seriously.

  • Peter_Roe

    … but no matter what, don’t mention Rossi, ‘cold fusion’, Pons, Fleishmann, or decades of misinformation, career assassination or cover-up. It’s LENR – OK?

    • Ivone Martin FitzGerald

      Peter, these people may be supporting LENR, but they are responsible for the badness in the past. I can see two distinct cultures developing, the LENR culture, derived from the hot fusioneers, who killed P-F’s joint careers, the name “Cold Fusion” stone dead and secondly the people who stuck with Fleischmann and Mallove through thick and thin and called it what it is – Cold Fusion, no messing about. The latter group are also the first to get Cold Fusion off the ground in the shape of Rossi and Defkalion. Both companies call it like it is – Cold Fusion.

      • Gerrit


        it is different, which does not mean that I know it better.

        I don’t think it really matters how I think about the whole topic, because I also look at it from my particular angle.

        Nevetheless, I do not see “two cultures developing”, the way you do. I only see a phenomenon which is still far from understood by the scientists who work in the field and completely misinterpreted by most scientists who were taught it is the prime example of “bad science” and never had the slightest idea there might be something interesting after all to investigate.

        What is “known” about this phenomenon is that observations have been made about excess heat, nuclear ash, transmutations, but not necessarily always at the same time.

        A multitude of theoretical proposals have been made that try to explain the observations.

        It is quite possible that there are more mechanisms at work at the same time.

        So what to call this ?

        what is fusion, what is cold, what is low energy, what is nuclear ?

        Is only thing that matters is if there funding available for research in this topic.

        If there is ample funding, than there will be ample scientists available to work on it and it has become as much mainstream as mainstream can get.

        • Peter_Roe

          Actually I suspect that there will be many deep shisms, especially in early days, and one of these will be the division between the formal scientific establishment, whose record is not good (but who want a piece of the action anyway) and the long term experimenters (plus the very few scientists who have been brave enough to take the subject seriously). The aims of these two groups will be so fundamentally different that conflict is inevitable.

          On the one hand, the experimenters want to use essentially Edisonian methods, perhaps supported by tentative theories, to come up with megawatt thermal or electrical outputs for immediate commercial use.

          On the other hand, the establishment scientists will want to get research grants, to set up new institutions and departments (empires), and to cover their ars*s if they are, or have been, involved in any attempt to damage or suppress CF research during their careers. Their aim will basically be to turn LENR research into a long term ‘project’ that sucks in the megadosh, just as the hot fusionists have done so successfully (in fact many of those involved in LENR research may turn out to be the same individuals who have made a very good living from the hot fusion con).

          The two approaches are completely incompatible from the scientist’s POV, so they will naturally seek to close down their ‘amateur’ rivals so that they can settle down to a lifelong career in the ‘new’ science of LENR. It would be far more difficult to get grants for developing this ‘potential’ new power source, if someone is selling CF heaters down the road, so an early priority will be (with the total complicity of energy cartels and governments) to attempt to get CF research pulled into the ‘nuclear’ camp on safety grounds, which could be rapidly trumped up on the basis of suitably scary (and peer reviewed!) scientific papers. Ironically, if Rossi succeeds in interesting mainstream science in his devices, he may be creating trouble for himself in the months and years ahead.

          • GreenWin

            Spot on Peter. A very good overview of the schism being manufactured to reign in this life-affirming discovery. It all leads to one rather dour conclusion – the most powerful & educated human beings are not mature enough to accept correction.

            Rossi/Focardi and the courageous band of scientists who have supported CF all prove one thing: mainstream is now and has been dead WRONG. Not only are they wrong, they have tried to hide their errors – aka coverup. Now, that proof of their colossal FUp is coming to light, they are scrambling to rename, patent, manipulate, control, as they have in the past.

            This is the result of unremitting hubris. Unwillingness to say three very simple words: “We were wrong.” Real leaders do this. Men of moral fortitude follow with another three words: “I Am Sorry.”

          • georgehants

            As you guys know I agree entirely with what you are saying.
            I fear it will take a few more than us to change things though.
            Rossi is very quite on his page, working up for something good I hope.

          • Ivone Martin FitzGerald

            One word: correct.

          • Omega


            Rossi could be very busy preparing for the meeting.

          • Gerrit

            In some way I don’t think mainstream science “was wrong” about cold fusion. Even if LENR becomes accepted science, one can still maintain the argumentation along the line: “had the evidence / repeatability been rock solid from the start and had there been a workable theoretical proposal, we would have had a change to investigate it. But without that there is not much mainstream science can do” And I tend to accept that position.

            There is no way science – and I mean the mainstream institutionalized science machine we know today – can happily investigate each and every little artifact they find interesting.

            However I do think that there were two things that “mainstream science” is to blame for:
            1) the ridicule, contempt and personal attacks for the ones that did investigate the topic.
            2) the persistence in not wanting to look over the fence and even preventing others to have a look at it.

            But those two things have not so much to do with mainstream science, they are simply human behaviour. The bad kind. The ones we believe the ideal scientist does not possess.

          • Chris

            Pretty much so. People keep crying foul about the establishment but that’s not what the problem has been and I see no reason why they should any more than be embarassed for having considered cold fusion an impossibility. It will just turn out to have been an all too hasty conclusion, it’s the kind of thing that happens.

            I don’t believe they will make efforts to bury the truth, researchers are not the KGB or the CIA, they are imperfect but part of their training is to allow for unexpected twists to come up. The history is full of them and they know it. That’s the typical mindset of the professors I studied under.

          • GreenWin

            Gerrit, CF was killed twice by DOE even when presented with hard evidence. If we cannot own up to this FUp and the subsequent attempts to kill research (continuing witness Peter Hagelstein’s recent loss of independent funding) the nation and perhaps species is doomed. LEARN from mistakes. Do not pretend they didn’t happen and claim to have been right all along. It will not kill anybody to admit the truth.

          • Chris

            Who are you talking to Green? Did you mean me?

            Anyway, who cares about the DOE, I was talking about researchers and how they typically reason. Whenever they use concise wording about something being true/false or proven/disproven, they always tacitly mean it in the sense of until futher evidence shows otherwise.

            The trouble is, as Gerrit said, human nature.

          • GreenWin

            Gerrit, you point to the precise reasons to restructure the status quo. Actually it needs a restructuring of funding. Such that a wide demographic of voices are heard. And no line of inquiry is avoided if it has evidence and potential.

      • clovis

        Hi, guys.
        Dr. Rossi has said that his discovery is different than that of F&P.
        Dr.Rossi knows what is going on in his machine, and has been able to improve it tremendously, wouldn’t you say .
        Everyone else is just stabbing in the dark,

        Wouldn’t it be great if Dr.Rossi would show up after Krivit has spread his vile puke and completely show him for what he is , as Dr. Rossi has called him a snake.
        What pressure can we bring to bare on this slezz bag.

    • Ged

      I like how they try to say it isn’t any kind of fusion, when it is transmutation of atomic nuclei from one type to another by… fusion. What, are they going to call it alchemy to try to pretend it isn’t what it is? What about the excess energy given out? It’s incredible just how hard they try to avoid “cold fusion” as a term, even if it is intellectually dishonest.

      • clovis

        FUSION, For sure, but we should remember that the weak force, has transmutation,as one of its phases, for the lack of a better word.

        • clovis

          Just a little info.

          The Weak Force

          One of the four fundamental forces, the weak interaction involves the exchange of the intermediate vector bosons, the W and the Z. Since the mass of these particles is on the order of 80 GeV, the uncertainty principle dictates a range of about 10-18 meters which is about 0.1% of the diameter of a proton.

          The weak interaction changes one flavor of quark into another. It is crucial to the structure of the universe in that

          1. The sun would not burn without it since the weak interaction causes the transmutation p -> n so that deuterium can form and deuterium fusion can take place.

          2. It is necessary for the buildup of heavy nuclei.

          The role of the weak force in the transmutation of quarks makes it the interaction involved in many decays of nuclear particles which require a change of a quark from one flavor to another. It was in radioactive decay such as beta decay that the existence of the weak interaction was first revealed. The weak interaction is the only process in which a quark can change to another quark, or a lepton to another lepton – the so-called “flavor changes”.

          The discovery of the W and Z particles in 1983 was hailed as a confirmation of the theories which connect the weak force to the electromagnetic force in electroweak unification.

          The weak interaction acts between both quarks and leptons, whereas the strong force does not act between leptons. “Leptons have no color, so they do not participate in the strong interactions; neutrinos have no charge, so they experience– (no electromagnetic forces;) but all of them join in the weak interactions.”(Griffith

          • clovis

            The electron neutrino (a lepton) was first postulated in 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli to explain why the electrons in beta decay were not emitted with the full reaction energy of the nuclear transition.

            Neutrinos interact only by the weak interaction

            Leptons and quarks are the basic building blocks of matter, i.e., they are seen as the “elementary particles

          • Chris

            No, that was Fermi and he got it into Zeitschrift Zur Physik in 1933. I can still remember looking it up and studying it when I was a student.

          • clovis

            Thanks Chris.

          • GreenWin


            “the uncertainty principle dictates a range of about 10-18 meters which is about 0.1% of the diameter of a proton.”

            A bit confusing since the exponent is in lower case. Indeed the diameter of a normal proton is generally about 10 -15 (minus 15th) or, one 1 millionth of a nanometer.

            Of course one must accept the quark component of protons as suggested by Gell-Mann, who curiously has sought to destroy any idea of cold fusion.

            I suggest that part of what LENR will teach us is that our entire concept of “building blocks of matter” is inaccurate. I suspect we will learn that matter is a coagulation of energy at different wavelengths and there are no real “particles” at all.

          • clovis

            I wonder why, it just seem a natural process to an untrained eye/mind.—smile

          • clovis

            TOE = ENERGY ——SMILE

        • Ged

          Indeed, but gotta have that fusion event first before transmutation can progress. At least with these stable nuclei that aren’t undergoing radioactive decay.

  • daniel maris

    All good stuff. Great to see this mainstream event. Will it attract some attention from the MSM? I don’t think so – they seem to be fast asleep. But one can hope.

  • Barry

    A friend of mine wrote, in an opinion column in a small local newspaper, about CF last Feb. It was what got me looking into CF. S Krivit emailed him then called him on the phone, relentlessly trying to discredit Andrea Rossi. It was very confusing why a man would go to that length to try to tear apart someone’s credibility. I don’t think I’m interested in listening to someone with such a negative bias.

    • Stanny Demesmaker

      That’s also the reason why isn’t posting anything anymore about Rossi. Krivit succeeded in discrediting him their. I wonder what his agenda is?

      • Chris

        His agenda is to avoid competition with some other party who is working on LENR. Maybe. I dunno, he’s a bit of a nutcase nut he must have his reasons.

        Overall, this is good news too.

    • Robyn

      The first time I heard that CF/LENR had returned as a serious issue was from a customer in a Starbucks in Accokeek Maryland. (I’d love to reconnect with whomever that person was, BTW).

      I said I was familiar with Fleischmann and Pons from 1989, but had heard nothing since then.

      He said, watch Rossi, steer clear of Krivit. I’ve now watched both, and find watching Rossi more fun and interesting.

      I don’t know Krivit’s beef, but I don’t care. He clearly doesn’t like Rossi, but he otherwise seems to contribute.

      More importantly, it doesn’t matter because LENR’s years in the wilderness are over. Whether the Hot-Cat is ever verified, and I think it will be, LENR already is.

      • GreenWin

        He is considered a “snake” who probably represents the secret agenda bankers, Bewilderbergs, Scary Owls, and Bones&Dull teams. His agenda is command and control of cold fusion.

        • Roger Bird

          I have been keeping a light view of LENR lately, waiting for some spectacular new news, just scanning headlines and articles. But I notice that there are a lot of conferences and sessions within conferences about LENR. It just doesn’t make any sense for all of those sessions and all of those conferences to be put on, and for all of those people to spend money traveling to those conferences and sessions, if LENR isn’t real.

          This is called soft evidence, or social evidence. I prefer social evidence. It assumes that really smart people are smart enough to not throw away their time and money and credibility on things are non-existent.

          As far as I am concerned, the reality of LENR is locked down tight. LENR-on-steroids for me is also a lock. Rossi, I am still struggling with that and I want to believe.

          • GreenWin

            Roger, you wouldn’t know about LENR or LENR-on-steroids if not for Dr. Rossi. What human messenger is infallible? Roger, a perfect Creation includes imperfect people. The challenge here then is to embrace the message, which is distinct from its conveyance.

        • RGCheek

          But wouldnt that make Krivitz kind of a sociopath?

          • Chris

            He’s a nutcase, whatever you call it.

      • Jim

        Krivit has put himself behind a paywall, which means he’s got a market, which means LENR is “more real”.

  • Voodoo

    I have some stupid idea for benefit of Pordenone business:

    Some very low-tech, however efficient and useful prospective use of low-temp 1MW E-Cat:

    Heating of biomass at some Green Tech Countryside companies.
    They are heating biomass old way with their own precious and costly biogas. So they may have more biogas for sale.

    • john E

      That does not seem like a stupid idea to me.

  • Jacob

    What about if Andrea Rossi dead – Does the secret of E-Cat go with him and the issue remains unknown secret for ever ?

    • Gerrit

      Sorry to say, but when that happens mankind is doomed.

    • admin

      He has made provisions for its transfer to others in the case of his death.

      • Jacob

        Probably he wrote down E-Cat secrets in a documents and kept with his son.

    • Warthog

      Simply put…..NO…..the major part is knowing it can be done in the first place.

      One poster has already laid out how an experiment could be done to rapidly screen many samples at once. A reasonably large pressure vessel (large defined as with an internal diameter of say 24 inches. Pressure vessel equipped with a sapphire window, though which a plate can be viewed by an infrared camera. On said plate, array small ceramic “boats” containing the multiplicity of samples to be tested. Introduce hydrogen, heat, and take video capture of how the different samples temperature changes. Some engineering needed to be sure the pressure vessel is safe, but that is “baby engineering”….”even a cave man could do it”.

    • first of all, other researcher can find it too… will just take time.
      A discovery is made because of a context, some talent and some luck…
      there is many a talents. Withe ffor you can multiply opportunities to be lucky. the contexts is the most problematic part, since if funding and thus research disapear, the dynamic will die… But if hope is kept alive, and now it have a bug dynamic, it will be discovered.

      Also don’t forget that Defkalion have a working reactor too, that Brillouin have one that work too.
      That Celani have another…

      Finally if people wan’t to copy E-cat, they can simply find the old-ecats and disassemble them. read archives, notes, ask witnesses, if not to know the secret, but to gather the path he have followed.

      But I repeat what is the weakest point about losing a discovery is not science, but the dynamic… the desire to find it. Many invention were simply forgotten or ignored, like cold fusion, because the time was not ready.

      • Jacob

        Actually that discovery of Rossi came out through special inspiration and not via hard-working or knowlege issue.
        It is a special grant bestow given to Rossi.

    • Cliff Bradley

      The “secret” remaining a secret forever is not possible. Once it is known that something CAN be done, it will, eventually, BE done over and over. There is a lot of research being done by hundreds of individuals. Eventually someone will stumble upon the “secret” or something else that works. It is inevitable.

      That being said, it might take a while for someone else to bring a product to market compared to the “light speed” pace that Rossi is turning prototypes into working products. “Light speed” being defined in this contigious and over regulated world as “pretty quickly” in past times when you could do pretty much what you wanted without a lot of government interference. The governments of the world are keeping this tech out of the hands of people that really need it.

    • When will we begin to understand that there are a myriad of others who are all reporting positive LENR results. MIT has an ongoing 14 COP lenr device operating and available for public examination. Etc. Etc. Rossi certainly lit a fire under LENR, if his claims are true (though he is not the epitome of honesty) he is probably the closest to a commercial product. However, Rossi is by no means necessary to establish the truth of LENR or even high COP LENR.

  • GreenWin

    This looks like a W-Larsen theory & kirvit dog and pony show. Keep in mind it was ANS and EPRI that helped kill cold fusion in the 1990s. They both are trying to worm their way back into the cold fusion fold, mostly by refusing to admit it IS fusion. How to explain the production of He3, H34 in LENR that is the accepted signature of nuclear fusion?

    But it is yet another feather in the cap of LENR, and commercialization. ANS needs to fast track education on refitting their old nukes with LENR “fuel rods.” And EPRI needs to educate its members on the transition from central energy to distributed energy sources. And how to do so profitably. Both are now in the fold. ANS and kirvit team are bent on control via the W-L theory and patents. This seems unwise as it keeps the same old centralized energy schemes in place and does little for the rest of the planet.

    • GreenWin

      I think it important to add a caution against over-optimism re the ANS kirvit talk. This person has very odd ways of going about supporting CF, including attacks on prime researchers like Dr. Mike McKubre, Dr. George Miley, Andrea Rossi, Dr. Levi, and even Nobel laureate Dr. Brian Josephson:

      Josephson concludes destructive anti-social behavior is the domain of psychologists who are quite interested in these areas.

    • Ivone Martin FitzGerald

      See what I said about the two developing cultures surrounding the science further down the page in reply to Peter Roe. One stemming from the acceptance of cold fusion (ICCF, and Mallove) who call the process cold fusion and the other stemming from its rejection and subsequent suppression (ANS, EPRI, “convert” Krivit, Widom – Larsen) who call it LENR and refuse to countenance the conversion of hydrogen into the two stable isotopes of helium. In both cases the science is the same.

      • GreenWin

        It certainly is a strange if not artificial second “camp.” Such camps are invented to fan divisiveness, in an old-fashioned attempt to divide.

  • Ivan_Cev

    The evidence on LENR is growing, no independent replication or peer review yet, but the number of serious researchers is increasing, Universities, Japanese companies, Italian scientists, some US companies, some French researches, Reports from the naval SPAWAR laboratory, NASA, Widom-Larsen, NASA LENR experiments reports, Abundo, Celani, Piantelli, Storms, Miley, Godes, Hagelstein, Patterson, Mckubre, Mallove, Ponds, Fleisman, Parchamazad, Mossier, etc, etc, etc.
    The old scientists are dying a new generation with more open mind is replacing them.
    Nickel/Hydrogen era may be at the door.
    I am not a believer of Rossi, His behaviour does not seem right to me, His reports are not water thigh, His test are questionable. I give him a 5% chance to be true, My personal speculation is that He uses the Piantelly effect as the base of his claims. but have no more. Focadi his more important associate has said clearly he has not seen the catalyst. Levi may have measured deformed sine waves with ordinary meters.
    I believe Rossi owns the world a serious independent test of his claims, a test against a blank control device.

    • Kim G. Patterson

      Well it seems that their is anomalous heat production
      from LENR.

      Are You are saying you are not ready to believe that
      the production of heat is as high as you have heard
      coming from Andrea Rossi?


      How much heat would you be able to believe in?



      • Ivan_Cev

        I will believe in milliwatts if tested properly. is not the number of watts that matters but to prove the principle beyond doubt.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      Ivan_Cev: “The evidence on LENR is growing, no independent replication…”

      There are hundreds of replications and you think they are not independent? You think they’re all members of a cabal?

      • GreenWin

        Ivan is likely a paid denier.

      • Ivan_Cev

        No experiment has been replicated, they are all variations of different experiments.
        Replication is what Fleishman memorial project is trying to achieve.

        • GreenWin

          Ivan, this is what is going to be eradicated from the culture: infantile knit-picking from agenda-driven clownery! Sorry Ivan, you’re not a clown but apparently you work for one!

  • vbasic

    The conference is good news. Come on people. (The ones still upset with ANS). This is the 21st Century. Yes, in the time of Galvani and Galileo the establishment didn’t accept their discoveries and it took a long time for change. But in our hyper-accelerated access to information and scientific tools, things change a lot quicker. It’s been 20 years. As for the distinction between LENR and ‘cold fusion’, LENR allows a way in for former disbelievers and for those who think Coulomb barrier is too big of an issue in standard cold fusion. Hydrogen becoming virtual neutrons or ultra low momentum neutrons within the nickel lattices is more attractive and requires fewer assumptions.
    Who knows? Maybe one day, even the American Physical Society will change their position. (although it might cause a few physicts to go insane). Who would have thought that CERN would have an LENR conference?

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Can ultra low momentum neutrons explain the Mitsubishi transmutation reactions?

      • Alan DeAngelis

        It’s just that I think that the Mitsubishi data is the most solid evidence of LENR to date. So, I think it would be a good idea for people to try to explain what’s going on in these transmutation reactions.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Ultra low momentum neutrons might explain it but Oppenheimer- Phillips reactions might also explain them.

          D + Cs(133) > P + Cs(134) 4.7 MeV

          Cs(134) > Ba(134) + e-

          D + Ba(134) > P + Ba(135) 4.7 MeV

          D + Ba(135) > P + Ba(136) 6.9 MeV

          D + Ba(136) > P + Ba(137) 4.7 MeV

          D + Ba(137) > P + Ba(138) 6.4 MeV

          D + Ba(138) > P + Ba(139) 2.5 MeV

          Ba(139) > La(139) + e-

          D + La(139) > P + La(140) 2.9 MeV

          La(140) > Ce(140) + e-

          D + Ce(140) > P + Ce(141) 3.2 MeV

          Ce(141) > Pr(141) + e-

          D + Cs(133) > P + Cs(134) 4.7 MeV

          Cs(134) > Ba(134) + e-

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Pardon me; delete the last two lines (a cut and paste screw up).

      • GreenWin

        The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project is moving along with the “greatest of vigor” (JFK.) Spacegoat at the other site provided this inspired link:

        They are replicating the Celani experiment with good precision. There is what appears an excellent data acquisition package from HUGnet – green inventors. I expect to see a kit from these folks available to all but the most backward physics departments around the world. THIS will help accelerate LENR toward light speed and allow thousands of student to learn about LENR. Congrats to MFMproject personnel!

    • LilyLover

      New Peer Review Process 101
      101.1 It’s a peer review PROCESS; not a peer review. Follow ‘the process’.
      101.2 The process always has one result. Have shell within shell within shell… and in the nutshell, have a bigh zero.
      101.2 When somebody is peerless; do not review.
      101.3 The difference between pay per view and peer review is – you need attentiveness for entertainment.
      101.4 If government says force = mass + acceleration; put a disclaimer that – we have not experienced the physics of distorted frames of reference hence under cetain circumstances, it “might” become true.
      101.5 Only financially inconsequencial research/results may be published.
      101.6 Governments may cancel your “Professional License”; if you violate the norms of peer review; if your profession doesn’t have licensing, governments will soon intoduce one.
      101.7 If somebody sidesteps the peer-review for some groundbreaking research, all their funding shall vanish; if it doesn’t stop at that, they will vanish; if it still doesn’t stop; New-Journalists-101s will be sent their way.
      101.8 May the gullible/needful PhDs pay for the peer review publishing.
      101.9 No original though is possible; therefore, a paper without citation is a crime. Corollary: If a paper has zero substance, that’s OK – as long as it has 100 references formatted in a very specific & error-free way.
      101.10 Extra efforts must be taken to strip the last shreds of creativity, beauty, readability, user-friendliness and relevance which may show up automatically through the authours’ natural writing. I.e. if it is diamond-in-the-rough, burn it to charcoal-in-the-rough. If it is charcoal-in-the-rough; call it a potential breakthrough/superinvention/history-defining-moment/turning-point.
      101.11 Always be jealous of your peers. Put down the good work. Focus on the grammar trivia; if you cannot catch the mistakes; request more citations for the most ridiculous things. Example: Breathing fresh clean air makes you feel better. Ask what’s the basis of this assertion? Can a peer reviewed paper funded by government money be shown to state that? How clean is clean? Whose parameters – EPA / CARB / FHWA /NEPA? Was there a statistical survey conducted amongst control groups to establish that the clean air made them feel better? Where is the data for that study? If the control group is anonymous – the study is invalid. If the control group is named, there is an infringement of personal privacy. Either way the study you conducted is useless, if it producess something useful.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        “Everybody knows that the dice are loaded….”
        Leonard Cohen

      • Tony76

        Amazing summary.

      • GreenWin

        Sadly accurate.

  • Omega

    If I were the ANS, I don’t know that I would want the Krivit present. UNLESS.

    It’s possible that Krivit is a Guardian Mole.

    Put in place years ago to watch for smoking embers of cold fusion. If detected, he cozies up to the target, Working from the inside.

    He poses as a friend to new Energy. Thus his Website. If any advances are made that allows credibility he digs for inside info on the target. Weaknesses, Soft spots, Both of a technical & personal nature.

    Passes this info to his handlers. And when the time is right, He Strikes.

    This fits the Rossi scenario very well. He was Buddy Buddy with Rossi in the beginning until Rossi showed serious results. He has also attacked any who have shown favor or lack of disdain for Rossi’s work.

    Attacking others had a negative impact as word spread among LENR researchers not to trust Krivit. To salvage what credibility he still had, he has backed off a little on that track. He now focuses more on any who would publish supportive info of Rossi. Ny Teknik was 1 of several that were hit with an e-mail blitz threatening to target their advertisers.
    NOTE posted by: Barry on October 5, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    It would be interesting to know what Entities originally backed him & who the Individuals of those entities were/are. Just Follow the Money.

    Note: This isn’t just another conspiracy thing. This is a common practice of both Government & Industry. DARPA was create for the sole purpose of watching for & developing advanced technologies. To prevent the U.S. being caught off guard in the future after the Russians launched Sputnik weeks before we launched our 1st Satellite. The U.S had know Idea the Russians were that far along.

    • daniel maris

      I certainly have come across a site that appeared to be green energy -friendly but was raising all sorts of queries about wind and solar energy. Made me think: who is funding this? So, that sort of “black op” is a definite possibility.

      Does anyone know what Krivit’s background is? Has he always been involved in this field?

      • GreenWin

        Not that it matters really, but kirvit has no background in science. Last I looked he has a Business Admin education. One must wonder why then the ANS has agreed to give him space at their convention. This appears an attempt to sell the W-L theory which has just been peer reviewed by six scientists:

        According to LENR denier “Popeye” the paper says:
        “It seems, the threshold effective electron mass increase (beta = 2.6) is pretty unlikely. They calculate a value of beta = 1.01 using published estimates of proton rms displacements. That’s 1% increase compared to the necessary 160% increase. If they use the same proton rms displacement value that WL used, they still only get 1.8, well below the threshold for *any* electron captures to occur.”

        Many well placed scientists have found major problems with W-L. Which hopefully will suggest to Joe Zawodny and Dr. Bushnell at NASA to keep looking.

    • GreenWin

      This is a reasonable look at “psy-ops” programs which are designed to manipulate the human psyche. “Psy-ops” fail a basic human test of believability – they never hesitate to exaggerate. At least some species. Go over to the ecatnews site and read the studied negative comments. This is not human behavior. Seems that some in the spy-ops programs simply have no command of real human nature. Hence the gateway to their defeat.

      • Peter_Roe

        Ecatnews is a good education in the ‘maryyugo’ school of tro11ing, and when you’ve observed in its full glory it’s pretty easy to spot when the individuals concerned try their hand here (as several have done recently) in various guises. As GW infers, unrelenting negative statements and sneering accusations, fake concern for nonexistent ‘victims’, clear use of implication, selective truth, and endless repetition – the hallmarks of employed shills – are not normal human behaviour, and such comments (and their perpetrators) quickly stand out for what they are.

        The real danger, as this discussion brings to light, is the very few much more subtle ‘moles’ who integrate with discussions only in order to quietly introduce doubt, but in a way that is very difficult to separate from proper skepticism. It’s only when such people have been at work for some time that their motives become clearer. I would have said that kribit did seem to fall into this category, if it had not been for the gross and unsubtle efforts of ‘Gary Wright’, who appears to be kribit’s associate, puppet or assumed identity.

        • georgehants

          These people, because we are aware of their strange aims on these pages, are just a silly irritation.
          The real crime is that these same type of people in main-line science and the establishment seem to be excepted as the norm.
          It I think, really is time for science to clean up it’s act and remove these people so that science can get on with it’s only job —
          Follow the Evidence and search for the Truth in all areas of the natural World.

        • Krivit’s antagonism to Rossi stemmed from a thwarted personal ambition. He didn’t get something he wanted and expected early on in their relationship. I honestly can’t remember what it was, but he once wrote about it, indirectly.

          • Peter_Roe

            If that’s all it is (rather than some commercial reason), his unrelenting antipathy towards Rossi begins to look completely unhinged.

          • Sorry, Peter. By “personal ambition” I did mean a personal commercial interest.

  • Tangled Connections

    Edited for stupidity