More on Cold Fusion in Scientific American

The newly released Believers film has been mentioned already in Scientific American, and now it has been followed up with a longer article by Jennifer Ouellette titled “Genie in a Bottle: The Case Against Cold Fusion“, which provides a familiar critique. You don’t have to read too far to get an idea of what the tone of the article will be.

I can’t speak for the quality of the film, because I haven’t seen it, but as someone who has covered physics for (*cough*) going on 20 years, I well remember the controversy, and have followed it off and on over the years. So I readily admit to getting a little rant-y when I encounter insufficiently skeptical reportage on this topic. It’s prime ground for wishful thinking: who wouldn’t want a source of cheap, limitless energy? I sure do! But wanting something to be true isn’t the same as something actually being true in the rigorous experimental sense of the word.

Despite the developments that have been taking place recently that have been chronicled here and elsewhere, the narrative about cold fusion that most people hear from media sources they trust is that there really is nothing going on, and probably won’t ever be.

While I have a very different take on the whole field, I think I understand the author’s position given cold fusion’s history and its assessment by respected authorities. I really think that it’s just a matter of time (how long, I don’t know) before reassessment will take place, and then the idea of cheap limitless energy won’t be so far-fetched.

  • Who writes an article about a movie they have not seen… FAIL

    This person (guess) probably does not know anything about Cold Fusion either.

    Lets hope the Quantum Heat Guys have something for show soon.

  • jacob

    I am not a pessimistic person,anything is possible if you put your mind to it,but after learning the real truth about cheap limitless energy,one just has to look in the past ,just a few hundred years ago,when fossil fuel was not yet discovered,how a whole industry suddenly changed with the building of refineries producing gas and oil and plastics.
    Times will change again as it once did with crude oil.

    This time it will be LENR ,a nuclear process ,as with fission it will not be hard to believe by the world ,that overunity heat is produced.

    The time for Cold Fusion has arrived again,but this time is here to stay and not being pushed aside by those who profit greatly in the Energy sector.

  • Gerrit
    • clovis

      hi, guy.
      Yep, good article, i liked this statement -The focus clearly has to be on an opportunity to discover new physics and to understand new science.

  • daniel maris

    Well I don’t think that’s good enough. She’s a science writer. She should do some research. It’s pathetic.

    • Dr. Mike

      Daniel,
      I agree! Wouldn’t it have been great if she had done some very simple research and included in her article the latest data from Rossi’s H-cat? Also, she could have reported that scientists currently working on “cold fusion” now know why MIT and Cal Tech were unable to re-produce the original cold fusion experiments in their lab (they were not loading the palladium with enough deuterium).

  • Filip48

    We need a renaisscience.

    • Gerrit

      We already have one:

      Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR)
      at the University of Missouri

    • jacob

      We need the energy cartel to support LENR !!!

    • jacob

      we need the governments to take action ,to figure out that LENR could save them from financial ruin.

  • clovis

    Hi, everyone.
    this may be a blessing in disguise, listen guys, pay no attention to the noise, Dr. Rossi knows what needs to happen, and has things well in hand.
    This device is so important to the world, it must not be rushed, things are on schedule. any day now we could get 3rd party conformation, of it’s viability.
    I see Eng. Rossi, with his hand on the throttle, steam is building psi.
    The lenr train is ready to depart the station. i have my ticket and i see many others are on board as well.–SMILE

    • jacob

      I agree ,Rossi is a remarkable visionary ,who has paced his steps well,and may also have learned not to be too hasty concerning time predictions,as I said before research and development takes lots of time.

  • robyn wyrick

    Ouellette: “I can’t speak for the quality of the film, because I haven’t seen it, … I readily admit to getting a little rant-y when I encounter insufficiently skeptical reportage on this topic.”

    Me: “I can’t speak for the quality of Ms. Ouellette’s article, because I haven’t read it, … I readily admit to getting a little rant-y when I encounter insufficiently researched reportage on this topic.”

    BTW: “reportage”?

    So, that’s a funny excerpt. But the main point should not be either surprising or distressing.

    I obviously have too little direct information for certainty about CF. And I have too little scientific expertise to review the reports from Francesco Celani and the like.

    But even those with heaps of scientific expertise can be woefully wrong. The mainstream scientific community didn’t accept black holes when they were first proposed by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar in 1930.

    amasci.com/weird/vindac.html (btw, this is a fun read.)

    From what I read (Ni-Week, Univ of Missouri, NASA, etc.) Cold Fusion technology is being pursued with good science, but there are several well known factors that saddle it with a very high bar of proof.

    If the Hot Cat pans out with a solid, third-party report, no matter how many delays or “Rossi Says” doubts that may have preceded it, that will be a showstopper. Rossi will be an international hero, and people like me —- who see reason for hope —- will get to watch the birth of a new energy economy.

    It’s a great underdog story, and I have little doubt that people will want to tell it – even Mainstream Media people.

  • Job001

    She’s an english major writing news about sensational topics. Obviously she did news research but no science research. Her “straw man” technique was to slander the whole field with the worst examples.

    She slandered excellent scientists like P. Hagelstein and pumped up his corrupt(hot fusion funding biased) anti-Cold fusion extreme skeptics.
    Clearly she has no clue.

    She had the gall to quote the scientific method as basis for extreme skepticism and to tout her understanding of science. “Because that’s what the scientific method is all about.”

    Sorry lady, the scientific method isn’t about social ignorance news but is about Hypothesis, Observation, Data, Correlation, Models, Research, and Objective Knowledge subject to honest (not corrupt) review.

    • Peter_Roe

      “Clearly she has no clue.” Actually I would think she has probably turned in a piece that says exactly what she was briefed to say. ‘Here is the answer – now go find the questions’.

      The further up the MSM food chain, the more dismissive the articles. We will not see anything supportive of CF (or even accurate) until all arrangements for utilisation of CF are complete, including control measures to ensure state monopolies, and govt. taxation systems. The legislation to support these will require some interesting contortions if CF doesn’t officially exist!

      • GreenWin

        Peter, read my comment above. A little background digging turns up Ms. Ouelette is an APS staff Editor defending their hot fusion fiefdom – and denial of LENR. Jeez, you’d think these “prestigious publications” would hire journalists with a science background who can think independently.

        You’d think.

        • Peter_Roe

          GW, yes I read your post after I’d posted mine. Good digging – the establishment looking after its backside – pretty much what you’d expect, sadly.

          • GreenWin

            I have done the same with the skeps flavor of the month uber-skeptopath Kurt L Shanahan. Turns out Kurt likes people to think he’s a physicist at former Savannah River National Lab. He’s a programmer hired by Westinghouse, Bechtel, Babcock & Wilcox, and BNFL – a consortium of nuclear fuel and weapons manufacturers.

            These attack dogs are directing blowback to their masters. Action may not have been thoroughly thought through?

          • Peter_Roe

            Speaking of Shanahan, Methuselah recently highlighted the startling similarity in argument styles between this gentleman and the skeptic you mention further down the page. Coincidence, I’m sure.

          • Peter_Roe

            Corr. – Methusela

  • CP in FL

    I wish Rossi would give us a date and time when a reliable third party test will be completed and the results published. Where are the satisfied customers that we were promised? Where is the factory that was promised? How many months and years have to go by before we are given proof of a working device? I still do not see any Cold Fusion generators at Home Depot.

    Rossi, it is time that you prove to the world that you are not a scammer. You are the one that made all of these outrageous claims, now it is time to back them up.

    • GreenWin

      CP – were you “promised” a factory and satisfied customers of an e-cat? I’d like to see how and when that promise was made to you CP. On the other hand, after a two year wait I understand your frustration. It shouldn’t take long to invent, prove and manufacture an entirely new nuclear energy device.

      You can imagine MY frustration with DOE, and our ivory tower institutions who have promised ME clean, unlimited fusion energy since 1958!! They started their work in 1951 – that’s… heck that’s 61 years ago! Oh, and hot fusion has cost international taxpayers $274 BILLION. Sadly, another fusion facility NIF, failed to achieve ignition. 61 years, $273 BILLION taxpayer dollars and ZERO useful energy. I feell you CP:

      “[DOE,] it is time that you prove to the world that you are not a scammer. You are the one that made all of these outrageous claims, now it is time to back them up.”

    • Peter_Roe

      Yet another tro11 making the same tired demands.

      • CP in FL

        I am a troll for holding Rossi to his word? He is the one that said that there would be products delivered to satisfied customers by this time. He is the one that promised that a factory was being built. Where is it? You are welcome to call me a skeptic, but I am not a troll in any sense. If you wish to blindly accept whatever Rossi feeds you as fact then that is your problem.

        • GreenWin

          You can imagine MY frustration with DOE, and our ivory tower institutions who have promised ME clean, unlimited fusion energy since 1958!! They started their work in 1951 – that’s… heck that’s 61 years ago! Oh, and hot fusion has cost international taxpayers $274 BILLION. Sadly, last month another fusion facility NIF, failed to achieve ignition. 61 years, $273 BILLION taxpayer dollars and ZERO useful energy. I feel you CP:

          “[DOE,] it is time that you prove to the world that you are not a scammer. You are the one that made all of these outrageous claims, now it is time to back them up.”

        • Peter_Roe

          Such ‘questions’ are pointless as no-one currently has the answers. That is why they are frequently posed by tro11s, in an attempt to introduce uncertainty and doubt in the minds of casual readers. If that is not your purpose in posting these questions, then what is?

          • CP in FL

            I guess my main reason for posting these questions is to vent my frustration with Rossi. It seems to me that it would be very easy to get a reputable third party to test one of the e-cats. No secrets need to be disclosed. The device can be tested as a black box. The only reason that I can see for not doing this is that Rossi does not have the goods. Rossi has posted that third party testing would be forthcoming. Where is it then?

          • Peter_Roe

            There’s no stopping you is there. Crank the handle and out it comes – round and round.

          • ivan_cev

            Hi Peter_roe, you are the keeper of the faith and the guardian of Rossi’s promises. and a pseudo anti troll troll.
            Years have pass and nothing solid has been shown.

          • Peter_Roe

            Hi Ivan. I’ve seen what happens when pseudoskeps such as yourself are allowed to run riot on what was one a good news and discussion forum (ECN).

            So I will continue in my own small way to do what I can to help expose those I think are probably tro11s with destructive agendas. That does include you of course.

  • Voodoo

    Dear Luigi Sandri:
    1- it is false that any of our patent applications has been rejected. The process of patent pending is long and complex and goes through series of discussions between the Patent Office and the Attorneys of the Inventor. This is true for normal patents, you can imagine how complex is in this case.
    2- the fact that the patent is accepted or not will not affect at all our production and the diffusion of our plants. Simply, we will have to defend the Intellectual Property in other ways. Actually, we are manufacturing our plants and delivering too.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    —————–
    Very important news: production will not be affected by eventually patent rejection and Rossi is delivering plants now.

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510#comments

  • GreenWin

    It is somewhat tawdry and discomforting to have to dig into an author’s bio to determine why they write such biased, non-journalistic pieces on cold fusion. Couple events come to mind. “Scientific American” recently published a piece on the failures of ITER, the big hot fusion tokamak in France. ITER is now a $23 billion (300% over budget) science “experiment” that is the darling of American hot fusioneers in academia (MIT & Princeton, Cal Tech, etc) Department of Energy (a favorite of Steven Chu), and organizations like the American Physical Society. The APS has supported hot fusion since its inception way back in the 1950s.

    For example here’s an article on Sandia National Lab’s Z Facility “Sandia’s Z Facility Achieves First Fusion.” http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200306/fusion.cfm

    Look carefully at the writer/editor credits at the bottom – Jennifer Ouellette, Associate Editor APS NEWS.

    Here’s another American Physical Society fusion story: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200702/international.cfm

    Again, the Contributing Editor is… you guessed it, Jennifer Ouellette. Forget that Ms Ouellette has absolutely no science background (BA English, Seattle Pacific College) — she has been a staff Editor for the APS NEWS for a number of years.

    Little question now why her hit piece in Scientific American is so APS/DOE centric. The APS is the one professional association of scientists who will look silliest when LENR enters the commercial marketplace. As they said in the Watergate affair, “Follow the money.” Looks very much like Ms. Ouelette has followed directions too.

    • Adam Lepczak

      BA in English writes for Scientific American?
      As far as I am concerned that’s not even a real degree. She was in college to party and “write papers”…

    • Andrew Macleod

      Here’s another quality article by her about cold fusion.

      http://science.howstuffworks.com/starships-use-cold-fusion-propulsion.htm

      • GreenWin

        Essentially the same article. APS-flak propaganda.

    • GreenWin

      Ooops, forgot to add the Scientific American disclaimer included at the bottom of the Ouelette article:

      The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

      What whimping out. Why publish something if you are going to deny it represents your organization?

  • Andreiko

    Dear Dr..Rossi,There Is already included in a patent application to the reaction core internal heating and/or cooling so that it becomes possible with 1kern great power to deliver?

    • Andreiko

      Geachte DR.Rossi,

      Is er al in een octrooi aanvraag opgenomen de reactiekern intern te kunnen verwarmen en/of koelen zodat het mogelijk wordt met 1kern groot vermogen te leveren?

  • AB

    The author makes only a feeble effort to write a balanced article and the dismissive tone prevails in the end. There is no science in this article at all, so I’m wondering what the purpose of the article is other than reassuring readers that the hostile behavior of the scientific community towards cold fusion was appropriate. Of course, that some feel threatened by the cold fusion renaissance tells us that they aren’t really so sure in their opinion.

  • HHiram

    Even for a blog entry, this was a crappy piece of science writing. Clearly sensationalist, clearly biased, with no attempt to gather detailed information about the position she was “making a case” against.

    Besides, “making a case” is something that lawyers do. Science doesn’t take the argumentation or adversarial approach because you don’t decide what is *true* by winning an argument; you decide what is true based on evidence and reason. Truth is determined by who is correct, not by who wins. If this writer were an actual scientists she would know better.

    Hyperbole, character attacks, citation of circumstantial “evidence”, and glamorized narration have no place in science – even in the qualitative social sciences.

    This is not to say there is no *evidence* against LENR. There is, of course. But this must be balanced against the evidence *for* LENR. Moreover, there is enormous evidence (50 years’ worth) against hot-fusion as well. The lack of a theory to explain a phenomenon does not, in itself, constitute firm evidence. There was no theoretical explanation for electricity for almost 30 years after scientists began to manipulate it in laboratories. And then, as now with LENR, many scientists dismissed it as impossible or absurd or a hoax. Such foolishness was a product of arrogance and hubris, not a function of healthy scientific skepticism.

    At any rate, this writer is a hack and her “article” is an assassination piece. We don’t need “opinion” columns on science websites. Save that garbage for Fox News and CNN. This piece does nothing for the advancement of scientific knowledge, and Scientific American should be ashamed by it.

  • barty

    There is something going on at the prometeon page!
    The counter disappeared and now there is a blank green page with the URL on it.

    • Timar

      The new page is online now. Alas, only an Italian version.

      • Francesco CH
      • Peter_Roe

        Quite professional looking. Don’t forget that Prometeon is the licensee for Italy so you might expect the site to be in Italian! Unfortunately the site uses many graphics, so Google translate doesn’t work on everything.

        • Ged

          http://www.prometeon.it/tecnologia.php

          There’s some new test data we haven’t seen before. Minor stuff, but interesting.

          Sadly, as you say, we can’t translate it all due to the use of graphics.

        • Omega Z

          @Peter_Roe

          @Ged

          From the Prometeon FAQ, I noticed something that may be of Interest.

          Question: Who can guarantee the future supply of cartridges?

          In the Answer–>Moreover, apart from an initial period in which the customer can not buy in advance cartridges to protect trade secrets,cartridges reactor.<–"

          My Question- How to refill the E-cat safely with a Toxic powder. I've thought for Sometime now that the Refill Cartridge & the Core Reactor are one & the Same.

          How else do you seal a refill, yet be properly exposed to do it's thing. This way keeps it Intrinsically safe & protects your IP. A Totally sealed unit. Especially with the built in WiFi.

          http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prometeon.it%2Ffaq.php&act=url

          Note: I've found a couple errors on their Web site, but that could just be Google translate. I'll leave it to those fluent in Italian to point out.

          • Peter_Roe

            Omega – yes I think it is fairly obvious that the ‘cartridge’ is the complete reactor, probably including the heater elements and thermostat. Something shaped like a finned test tube perhaps, with all the connections brought out to an end cap with a screw thread and seals, perhaps.

            I assume that the answer in the FAQ refers to the 1MW unit, so the design of the modules must have changed radically from the demo unit, to permit user replacement of cartridges.

            It sounds like they may have adapted the ‘home’ unit design to create the ‘modules’, so if the 1MW is really available to order, the home units are probably ready to go too, just as AR claims.

            As you say, the fact that you are not permitted to stash cartridges is for IP protection. The monitoring system will tell ‘Rossi Central’ if a machine is shut down at any time, so an ‘agent’ can be rushed to the spot to ensure that nothing untoward is going on.

            Its possible there may be some kind of mechanical interlock to prevent cartridges being removed from a unit without a special code.

      • Timar

        Having had a quick look at it with google translate I couldn’t find any substantial new information nor a direct product offer. It rather seems to be a nice presentation of stuff already made public.

        • Peter_Roe

          “You can buy E -Cat industrial (1 MW heat up) by writing to the address indicated in the “Contact Us”, the product you are interested in and / or your specific needs.” Actually there is an online form, so writing is unnecessary.

          There seems to be quite a number of specifics that are not available on ecat.com dealing with capacities, connections, the control system, hydrogen management etc. Nothing followers of this site won’t be aware of, but it will be new to the kind of industrial clients they will obviously be looking for.

          I think this Prometeon website may be seen as something of a landmark in hindsight.

      • AB

        The new page is unprofessional in that it tries to convince the visitor of the reality of the e-cat via various youtube videos. It’s only hurting Rossi’s reputation and credibility.

        • Peter_Roe

          I agree about YouTube. What is so difficult about hosting your own streaming videos? If they have a speed problem they could at least use Amazon AWS S3 rather than YT.

          • Jon

            http://www.longtailvideo.com/players/jw-player/features/

            I believe this solution would be relativly easy to put up.

          • AB

            It’s not that they are using youtube. It’s that they have collected a series of “fan-made” and media videos of no scientific value that are supposed to convince the visitor. Rossi has no need to do this if he genuinely has what he claims (independendent test results etc.) That he uses these videos only makes him look dishonest.

            Also I have some doubts that Josephson approves of his video showing up there.

  • LilyLover

    May be we should start an initiative of completely ignoring authors when “It is somewhat tawdry and discomforting to have to dig into an author’s bio to determine why they write such biased, non-journalistic pieces on” any topic. May be we should start telling all our friends to cancel subscriptions to the venomous-priests-of-ignorance-journals. Let’s just begin mockery of them… no, let’s not… they do it themselves very well… Lets just treat these journalists with the same respect as we would treat a McDonalds worker who is lazy and refuses to wash hands.

  • zvibenyosef

    Though I have been a Scientific American subscriber for several years, I do not plan to renew my subscription, despite their thoughtful and in depth articles on a number of scientific areas. During the past few years (The Bush Era) I have noticed a distinct political slant in many of their articles which is completely out of place in a truly objective serious Scientific magazine. They have acknowledged President Obama’s contribution to Science with increased funding and the removal of obstacles to research in human genetics and their administrations active promotion of science in schools. Probably the most annoying regular article is the “Skeptic”, which contributes absolutely nothing, and is usually just flippant misinformed mixture of the authors personal opinions, with no supporting evidence.

  • Garry

    Why complain about bad writers? There are superb writers on this blog and forum who know more about LENR and could write a credible, non “fanboy” article that articulates the needed points.

    It could be sent as a “letter to the Editor” to Scientific American in response to Ouellette’s article.

    Fight back in the journals… that’s how it’s done. Remember– the media LOVES to report on fights and disagreements. Of course, possible the letter will be ignored, but then you can always repackage it and submit it elsewhere.

    • GreenWin

      Fight back in the journals… that’s how it’s done.

      That’s how it WAS done, Garry. Those days are coming to an end. The “journals” have corrupted themselves and lost credibility. The Open Access form of review and dialog is far more democratic and is expanding rapidly. The Journals of old are going the way of the buggy, and newspapers – out of business.

      • Robert Mockan

        Another reason those days are coming to an end is because getting paid per content or per word is not in the open access business model. Being a writer once meant researching, writing, editing, mailing, getting accepted for publishing (or rejected), and getting PAID. But now a lot of bloggers with incredible content and excellent writing post open access, for no monetary gain at all. Competition with voluntary open access is the merging of completely different paradigms.

      • Garry

        I partially agree, but at the end of the day industry is driven by “Key Opinion Leaders” (KOLs) and those leaders are chosen, generally, by publishing in the top journals. They read the journals and funding agencies fund according to where one publishes more than you would like.

        Rossi has the opportunity to break the pattern I hope, but money that drives research will still require KOLs to validate. If Rossi is right he of course will have no problem with access to resources. And then watch the VCs go after every LENR look-alike company like you would not believe (just like the social media company hype).

        But, it’s much more difficult for a VC to fund a company which does not have credible validation via publications and the “nod” of KOLs. They are going to go find an “expert”– and that expert will of course be from academia or industry. I know because I personally took Rossi’s stuff to top VCs in the bay area (at his request)– people who have funded my own companies. Guess what? They went to their standard KOLs and it got shot down. I even personally spoke to Al Gore about it. I thought he would be excited. He told me to go talk to the VC who had shot it down the week before. So it goes…

        So, even if it does go to Open Access– idiot reviewers still control what gets published. While I agree open Access has a great future, for the near future Science, Nature, Physics Review Letters, etc. (I believe) will be the dominant player.

        I believe that if people are claiming journals like Scientific American don’t matter anymore then don’t sit here and complain for a whole page about how bad journalist are… write to the offending journals so they understand there’s another audience to be served.

        Let’s say LENR is accepted, eventually. Guess what… think that will change academia? Stanford, MIT, Caltech and more will all move in on it so fast it will be blinding. It will be as if the Pons/Fleischmann debacle never happened. There will be a kerfuffle for a while and then suddenly the “big name” physicists will be all over it. The big guns will move in and try to take some credit.

        However, I strongly believe in Rossi and what he is doing. I hope he wipes the smirk off the faces of the people who have laughed him off. We will see.

        • GreenWin

          Garry, I see your points. However, as the general paradigm changes, so too will the model for traditional KOLs. This is not to say there won’t be a new breed of KOL – in journalism, people like Woodward and Bernstein of the 70s and certain online “personalities.”

          Sadly, there are no “big guns” in physics, simply because they are standing on the sidelines with a finger hung on their bottom lip. When more LENR/e-cat verifications arrive, the public will ask, why did this come from a guy (guys) in a garage and not from our “big guns?” Whom taxpayers have been giving succor to for 60 years??

          The reason is simple to grasp – the “big guns” have been busy sucking down fat salaries, cushy posts, and stroking their big egos. Some have worked openly to cover up LENR. Others are not “big” men. Rather, they are men without a moral compass. Or they allowed their compass to corrode. i.e. they are corrupt.

          Either way, the truth is coming out. These hack “writers” and DDD skeptopaths are clearly on the run. Why else would Josh Cude admit to being popeye and (soon) Mary Yugo, JNoman, Al Pretenza, etc. The old “guns” smell defeat. Gabriel’s horn is blowing; and the walls are crumbling.

          • Garry

            The walls can’t crumble fast enough…

  • Francesco CH
    • Pedro

      Nice list of questions, but when i click on one (for example the ones about the use) i don’t get the page with the reply. Is that a problem with my browser (mercury on iPad)?

      • Francesco CH

        I do not know, just scroll down the page and find all the answers

        • Pedro

          Oops… Beginners mistake… Look futher than the start of the page. Thanks for pointing that out.

  • Francesco CH

    Report on gamma rays / gamma radiation measurements :

    http://www.prometeon.it/download/Report_Villa.pdf

    • LENR4you

      “the isotopic composition of copper nuclei in the powder changes
      from a ratio of 63Cu/65Cu=2.24 (natural composition) to 1.6 after heat production”
      Report on gamma rays / gamma radiation measurements:
      http://www.prometeon.it/download/Report_Villa.pdf
      on page 2!

      Cu is in the Ni powder befor operation!

      • Ged

        It’s widely believed on the experimental evidence that copper actually plays an important role in the LENR event when using Ni. Ni-copper alloys seem to have the most success and highest power production.

  • Renzo

    from Daniele Passerini
    http://tinyurl.com/8kah994

    “At this point, people obsessed with paranoia that the E-Cat is a hoax, will further raise the stakes (with more irrational money) of their malignant hypothesis. And I know what they’ll put on the table, because in their view offering to sell the E-Cat to large and well-known italian industries (this is the target outlined at the conference in Pordenone) can only mean one of these possibilities:

    1. Prometeon was deceived by Rossi and in good faith walks towards the abyss;
    2. Prometeon is complicit in a international “sting” now directly involving hundreds of people.

    Obviously it is much more logical to assume that Prometeon is certain of the operation of Rossi’s Ecat and that we will soon see – probably in Italy, the only country that currently recognizes Rossi patent protection of his invention – the first company buying the 1 MW thermal plant, which will work in its factories.”

    “Now what matters is the conclusion of two other countdowns:
    1. the publication of independent and authoritative tests on the Ecat technology (that maybe will start to shed some light on which physical phenomena occur in the reactor);
    2. the public sale of the first 1 MW industrial plant
    I´m waiting confidently, I’m sure that now the acceleration of events is unstoppable.”

  • vbasic

    I remember 30 years ago when reading Scientific American, I had sweaty palms and knew to have a dictionary nearby. It was serious reading. So I go to the linked website. I see the same scholarly logo and almost expected to hear the Masterpiece Theater theme in the background. But then I started reading. ‘Cocktail Party Physics?’. I then go to the home page and see ‘Why Paper Cuts Hurt
    So Much’, ‘Promiscuous
    Birds and Humans’
    and ‘Fickle Fairies?”. Not the same Scientific American I remember. It’s more like the National Tattler of Science. Popular Science is more scholarly.

    • Robert Mockan

      No, not the same at all. In 1966 I was in high school, and in the back of the science class was the entire magazine set up to that year. I was able to talk the biology teacher (who was also the track coach) into letting me stay after so I could read the issues. I studied every article in every issue and made notes for further study. It took weeks to go through all the magazines. It was one of the few times I really enjoyed anything about high school. Over the years I’ve read more recent issues, but after the 80s I seldom finish reading new issues, and just through the magazine into the trash.

      Cocktail Party Physics? That pretty much sums up what it has become.

      • GreenWin

        Good thing we’re no longer drinking the Kool Aid.

  • Methusela

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg72506.html

    She’s deleting most critical comments from her blog post.

    That’s pretty unfair giving the high profile nature of the post.

    Jed Rothwell’s comments have been removed.

    One of her comments states:

    “I reiterate what I said in my original caveat: my blog, my rules. I am under no obligation to publish every single comment, and I will not let obsessive acolytes hijack this space with multiple comments the way I’ve seen done at many other sites.”

    That is fine, but not allowing even ONE comment per person smacks of absolutely MASSIVE arrogance.

    [ P.S This is very bad for my blood pressure! ]

    • Methusela

      http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg72520.html

      Ouellette un-erased the comment by Storms, and added:

      “With all due respect to Dr. Storms, I stand by my post.”

      http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2012/10/29/genie-in-a-bottle-the-case-against-cold-fusion/#comment-461

      Perhaps she restored this in response to my last message: “”I suggest you
      stop erasing comments from distinguished scientists such as Storms.”

      My own comments remain erased, as does the comment by someone else pointing
      to Robert Duncan’s words.

      McKubre has been watching these shenanigans from a distance. Not to put
      words in his mouth, I think he regards this as a skillfully executed
      hatchet job. He wrote to me with wry humor: “I am glad we are still a
      problem” for these people.

      – Jed

      At least there were many eyes watchng that debacle unfold.

      This makes me really really angry!

    • Robert Mockan

      No blogger should expect to remain credible if Jed Rothwell’s comments are erased. If one disagrees with him the correct action to take would be reasoned rebuttal.

      Rothwell isn’t out to make points, he manages the LENR-CANR.org site (calls himself the librarian, but the site would not exist without him), is more knowledgeable about the experiments that have been done than even some scientists working on the subject, is not a flake, has a track record for technical accuracy and reasoned analysis of the progress being made, understands people, has associated with the leaders in the field at one time or another… the accolades just go on and on.

      • GreenWin

        Robert, interesting isn’t is that this blogger of “Cocktail Physics” was the choice of the American Physical Society to attack cold fusion. She has no science background (BA English) but has been a loyal Associate Editor for the APS NEWS service.

        Clearly she, like a certain Kurt programmer at Fluor/Honeywell/NNN – is following direction from her sponsors at APS. If she is erasing remarks from distinguished scientists (critical or not) she further entrenches herself in the APS bedroom.

        Unfortunately, it looks like the only Cocktail Ms. Ouellette has fabricated… is a Molo Tov cocktail. 🙁

  • Bob

    Prometeon’s web site has been updated and states that the Industrial
    E-Cat is now available to purchase…. “with an estimated delivery time
    of the order of about 3-4 months, depending on the version.”
    (Taken from thier website)

    As presented, it states that you can order an Industrial E-Cat
    today with delivery in 3-4 months! They do not present it as
    a pre-order contingent upon certification, etc. but available now.

    If this is true, then there will be a company step forward
    (I would think almost immediately) that will NOT have any
    NDA’s attached. They will want to be the first to implement
    and recieve the moniker of being the first company to utilize
    a revolutionary technology.

    I would think this almost as important as third party confirmation.
    If a company steps forward, purchases a unit and in 4 months we
    read that it works as advertised, then Rossi will be correct…
    selling the product will vindicate! In 4 months, if we read no
    delivery or “it does not work” then, enough said…

    Dick Smith… put in an order and lets see what happens!
    (I would, but I am not independantly wealthy!)

    http://www.prometeon.it (Look under FAQ)

    • Frank

      What’s new about that – at ecat.com you (allegedly) may order a container since last year.
      ECAT 1 MW units, current price $1,5M (For sale now, 4 months delivery)
      http://ecat.com/ecat-products

      “In 4 months, if we read no delivery or “it does not work” then, enough said…”
      This 4 months have eplapsed half a year ago already…

      • Bob

        Frank,
        I agree with your point in general, but do believe this is quite different. The Ecat.com site (I have reviewed the site) only lists “pre-orders”, not a contractual order.

        However, more so, we have a “second party” involvement with Prometeon. The “only” venue for them is sales. If they and Rossi are legit, then they will be pushing sales where as Rossi appears more interested in development. If they are not legit, then what opportunity do they have to scam? Only to sell a non-existant product. If this would be the case, the method could not last long for them and would soon be exposed.

        So in either case, I see it as a much more difinitive test than a pre-order from Ecat.com. This company is offering actual binding contracts and exchange of money. This is significantly different in my opinion. (But then in this saga, who knows!)

    • clovis

      Hi, Bob.
      You said,(I would think this almost as important as third party confirmation.) i agree, this is great news, i just knew Mr. Rossi,
      was on schedule,and doing well.–smile

    • dsm

      eCat Australia claims that industrial eCats have been available for purchase for many months.

      The pity is no one is buying one & Dick Smith will be the last person to consider doing so.

      DSM

    • Omega Z

      Bob

      What you state sounds logical, But from a business view probably not.

      Notice when names are mentioned, these people are swamped with questions & E-mails. Not good for business. It more then offsets the I’m Green argument. Communications need to remain open to customers. This attention would preclude that to a large degree. Business would suffer severely.

      Having a means to reduce costs is a business advantage. Not something you would want to advertise to your competitor. Let them wonder how you can undercut their prices every time. It’s an advantage no business would advertise any sooner then necessary.

  • LilyLover

    May be we should start an initiative of completely ignoring authors when “It is somewhat taw dry and discomforting to have to dig into an author’s bio to determine why they write such bias ed, non-journ alistic pieces on” any topic. May be we should start telling all our friends to canc el subsc riptions to the veno mous-prie sts-of-igno rance-journals. Let’s just begin mo ckery of them… no, let’s not… they do it themselves very well… Lets just treat these jou rnalists with the same respect as we would treat a McDo nalds worker who is la zy and refuses to wash hands.

    Name Change: Scientif*c* American

  • ivan_cev

    Replication, and peer review. this is what the field needs.
    There is many groups working on it, lets cross fingers they achieve it and we have The LENR science born into light.
    The snake oil sales people should stay home. and let the work for serious scientist like Celani, Piantelli, Abundo, MFMP replication team, and others.
    We need to be more info about the NANOR etc.

  • “wanting something to be true isn’t the same as something actually being true …”

    Taking the science out of Scientific American.

    • Methusela

      I see that Joshua Cude is allowed to make his own usually vast posts, but nobody else ia allowed a right to reply.

      • Frank

        That experience may give you an idea how sceptics feel when they want to post a comment/reply here on e-catworld, but the comment remains ‘under moderation’ for ever.
        That’s why most of the sceptical ones ignore this blog and this site is “one sided” – just as the “open minded believers” wants it.

      • GreenWin

        They are claiming “a software problem” is to blame. Why not call Kurt L Shanahan – he’s an excellent programmer!

    • freethinker

      Also citing @vbasic below:

      ” It’s more like the National Tattler of Science”

      In all honesty, I agree.

      It is a very obvious and apparent effort of the establishment to “call out” the aka “acolytes” of cold fusion. No, it doesn’t help to add a disclaimer about “working for the Man”. Ridiculous.

      Scientific American has degraded over the years (as have some other publications) to become nonsensical. I would not venture to pay to read them. We should try to ignore this scholastic wreck, and allow them their folly – they do not know of what they speak.

      In the end, LENR will prevail, regardless of what this ill versed and misguided blogger writes.

      So, ignore. Don’t take the bait.

  • jacob

    for those who have been following this bloc for some time ,it must be clear ,that LENR will bring a tremendous boost to all countries of this world,ok there is going to be joblosses at first ,but it would be overshadowed by the remarkable job creation LENR has to offer,spending money for energy can very soon be obsolete,positioning all inhabitants of earth on an equal playing field,food production could be anywhere on earth,over population would be a non issue.
    The governments should sit down with their finance ministers and actually run some numbers ,and will realize it would be a win win situation for most involved .

    Why should humanity not prosper??

    including their budgets

    • Kim G. Patterson

      The fox (Vulpes vulpes) is guarding the hen house.

      Respect
      Kim

    • orsobubu

      >Why should humanity not prosper??

      Because in capitalistic production system conditions, LENR would accelerate overproduction, overpopulation, unemployment, competition, automation, fall of the profit rate (see Karl Marx’ Capital). In a word, LENR would enhance crisis conditions bringing to imperialistic wars. These crisis are inevitable in capitalism, but LENR brings nearer the physical limit of a continuous and limitless market expansion, which is the only way to delay the day of reckoning. In addition, there is a risk deriving from multiplying human industrial activities on Earth, because the heat barrier cannot be surpassed. I imagine only two ways to overcome this: mankind expansion in outer space (not a robotic expansion, because only human worked hours produce capital) or a communist revolution, where use value (useful energy and goods) replace exchange value (wage work, money, capital, banks).

  • GreenWin

    This comment to the Scientific American’s “Cocktail Physics” article is from Dr. Edmund Storms:

    “The scientific proof supporting the claims made by Fleischmann and Pons is now overwhelming. This is not the opinion of a “handful of diehard supporters” but of several major universities and corporations. The information is easily obtained at http://www.LENR.org – and in many books written about the history and the science.

    We are no longer in 1990 when the claims were in doubt and many people attempted to replicate them, some with success. Many of the reasons for success and failure are now known. An explanation for the phenomenon is being developed and claims are being demonstrated for commercial-level power. Surely a writer for a magazine as important as Scientific American would know these facts and not continue using the myth that was created before the facts were known.” Dr. Edmund Storms 10/30/2012

    Surely Ms. Ouelette knows more about science than Dr. Storms. Which is probably why Scientific American bought her story. I just cannot figure why she neglects to mention all her years as Associate Editor for the American Physical Society APS NEWS. They are LENR’s biggest opponent… after oil&gas, hot fusion/fission, electric utilities and fake environmentalists.

  • Pedro

    Over on the JoNP website, Emilio Icaza asked AR: “You mentioned last week that Leonardo Corp would not be the same this week. Has that transformation taken place?, and, when will we find out about it?”

    AR replied: “Dear Emilio Icaza:
    Yes, Leonardo Corp is very much powerful now. I can already say that the first 1 MW hot cat will go in operation within February 2013. It will not be a military application, therefore selected persons will be allowed to visit it. It will be installed in a big power production and distribution plant. This is the new. The plant is made in the USA.
    An extremely important agreement has been signed after the tests of the Hot Cat, which are going on since June in the USA and in Italy.
    The details will be communicated only after the plant will have been working for enough time to be visitable, also to avoid clubs in the wheels. That’s all I can say right now. Warm Regards, A.R.”

    Note that the delivery in februari is for a HOT CAT plant (the first), not the old eCAT plant that was delivered one year ago to the military.

    • Karl

      Very very good news!

  • lcd

    She may be in for a rude awakening

    • Peter_Roe

      In the short term her ‘opinions’ will probably be reflected in a number of MSM articles – she should enjoy this while it lasts. For others thinking of contributing similar disinformation pieces to MSM publications, I would strongly advise the use of a pseudonym.

    • NJT

      Or a new hair dye job – sorry I just could not help myself – I love those blond jokes…

  • GreenWin

    Here’s another comment erased by the SciMerican COCKTAIL PHYSICS lady but should be given a full airing; this one from Jed Rothwell:

    “If you are going to quote Robert Park, it seems to me you owe it to your audience to quote him when he brags publicly that he has never read a single paper. That is what he has said, repeatedly. He said it to a large crowd of people at the APS. If you do not believe me, ask him yourself. It is misleading to quote him as some sort of expert when he brags about the fact that he knows nothing.

    The editors of the Scientific American also told me that they have read no papers on this subject, because ‘reading papers is not our job.’ Their assertions about cold fusion also technically wrong. I published their comments here:”

    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294 . . . – Jed

  • Roger Bird

    Arrogance has no place among explorers and paradigm shifters.