APS Blog on "NASA's Cold Fusion Folly"

A blog post published on April 19th on the American Physical Society’s Physics Buzz Blog laments that scientists at NASA are getting involved in cold fusion, and specifically gives a strong critique of the Widom-Larsen theory, which is the theory that Joseph Zawodny and Dennis Bushnell at NASA have been investigating.

The author of the blog is identified only as ‘Buzz Skyline’, and gets straight to the point in the opening sentence of the blog:

I am sad – horrified really – to learn that some NASA scientists have caught cold fusion madness.

The remainder of the article is mainly devoted to explaining why Buzz Skyline doesn’t think that the WL theory canwork, mainly because there is no detection of neutrons in any cold fusion devices. He also mentions that even if the neutrons are absorbed in the matter there should be some evidence of transmutation, which he says has not been reported in any peer reviewed journals.

There are some responses in the comments from Steven Krivit, a strong proponent of the Widom-Larsen theory, who challenges the blogger’s assertions and invites readers to study the various papers and articles on the theory.

I suppose this is nothing really surprising to hear — these kinds of critiques of cold fusion have been common over the years, and apparently there has been nothing in the news of late to change the prevailing attitude.

BTW, Andrea Rossi is not a supporter of the Widom-Larsen theory either. Recently he responded to a question to the WL theory by saying:

My opinion is that the WL theory is wrong, because, for example, does not respect the leptons conservation law and considers virtual particles, which are very shortlived resonances between actual particles during a decay process, as if they were elementary particles with consistent lifetime.

  • Karl

    I think many of us that have followed the emergence of cold fusion have been quite surprised by NASAs atempt to put them self in the corner. Is there a thought behind, and in such case what could be the reason?

    • SteveW

      If the PTB lose the battle against LENR and it emerges despite their suppression, they will use these articles by NASA to save face. They can say, see we saw the potential of LENR and were even designing space planes and water heaters for home use and stuff like that. In the same article that NASA talks about all these wonderful things that can be done with LENR, they also include statements, what are really disclaimer statements that can be used by other media sources now to justify ignoring LENR. Like in the recent article “NASA: A nuclear reactor to replace your water heater”. They state “NASA researchers are working on producing the reactions by vibrating lattices of nickel saturated with hydrogen ions at high frequencies. Right now, those vibrations require more initial energy than the reactions produce, the same problem that has stymied efforts to produce fusion reactors.” This one statement alone seems to indicate that their is no commercial value to this technology. In reality, this may be one failed experiment of hundreds that NASA is working on and taken out of context to suggest their is no excess energy in LENR in any experiments. Not interesting or promising enough for mainstream media or the government to even discuss. If you call your representative and ask them why the government isn’t pushing for LENR development, they can site this one statement by NASA. It gives them plausible deniability of the future of LENR.

      The NASA articles make no sense- why design space planes using a power source that supposedly doesn’t even exist? That’s way kookier than even Rossi appears to be. To me it makes no sense except for the above scenario. I view NASA is being used to facilitate suppression. I think Rossi saw NASA for what they are and that’s why he wanted 15 million for a test though it made him look like he had been caught in a scam.

      • GreenWin

        Steve, if what you say is true (NASA used to facilitate suppression) then Rossi WAS caught in a scam – NASA’s scam.

        I think Zawodny and Bushnell are sincere and have hard evidence to prove it. It just POs the APS and Robert L. Park who believe it is they who should dictate what is physics and how the taxpayer’s money can be spent.

      • Peter Roe

        Agreed. NASA is a part of the US ‘military industrial complex’ Eisenhower warned about. It is very unlikely that their intention is to bring cold fusion to the masses.

        • LCD

          NASA in this case is just a bunch of honest hard working scientists who are trying to make our world a better place.

          I don’t think there is anything nefarious going on here.

        • Karl

          If I remember right they have hardly any budget for their LENR research which corresponds near anything they say they intend to do. This could indicate that there is no serious intention to be in the front to bring this new energy solution to market from NASAs point of view. This at least not officially as they obviously already have verified that the effect is real about 20 years ago. Perhaps they are much further along the line than we can imagine where their seemingly stubborn going after the WL theory is just aim to mislead the general public for the time being. Perhaps their real masters want to use their authority to try to delay the market introduction further.

        • Omega Z


          Could be NASA is looking at this in earnest for their future survival as All other Energy options tend towards a collapsed world GDP & no funding.

          Taking a close look at the so called smart grid is for TPTB to turn on/off at will your energy use. Rationing of resources. A World in Decline.

          • Peter Roe


            I share your view of ‘smart grid’ technology. Energy, food, water and information are all earmarked for total control.

            As LCD says, most scientists working for NASA will be normal hard working citizens, and most likely very few of them will have much inkling of the collapse that is coming down the road at all of us. At a higher level though NASA’s strategy is probably rather more devious, perhaps close to what Karl suggests above.

          • Peter Roe

            NASA is of course concerned primarily with space flight, and it would be natural for their scientists to look at cold fusion in this light. However I find the exclusive emphasis on futuristic space vehicles rather strange, given the huge number of terrestrial applications of the technology which would seem to have a higher priority.

            There has to be a suspicion that the real intention is to portray CF as an intensely powerful energy source that only organisations like NASA are qualified to develop (a process that will naturally take decades) and which has little to do with the day to day energy needs of the plebs.

            Of course, if Rossi comes through with his promises about access to an operating pilot plant, whatever devious PTB operations are in hand will come to nothing very soon, at least at one level.

          • GreenWin

            “NASA is of course concerned primarily with space flight…”

            Except for forays into obscurities like AGW. It is the satellite record that confirms the 3-4% expansion of the Antarctic since 1970.

            BTW, Antarctic: home to 90% all ice on Earth.

  • V.p.S.

    Leonardo Corp. filed an opposition to the Piantelli’s patent. See new documents:

    Patent war on LENR begins?

    • Peter Roe

      This was my guess back in January:

      “Peter_Roe on January 21, 2013 at 4:40 pm

      “Why fight…” Probably because some part of the Piantelli patent describes something Rossi is using (fire enough bullets and you must hit something). He (or his backers) may be preparing the ground for a challenge on ‘prior art’ grounds, in this case through his friend Stremmenos, in order to remove a potential obstacle.”

    • LCD

      Awful lot of trouble to go through for an “obvious fraud” who just wants to take investors money and go hide out somewhere warm and Wifi free.


      • Omega Z

        This could get expensive.

        $1000 just to file A Notice of opposition to the EPO.

  • Peter Roe

    The APS has been the epicentre of cold fusion denial and disinformation since P&F. Its interesting that ‘Buzz Skyline’ doesn’t seem to want to make his or her real name a hostage to fortune – I wonder why?

    • kemo sabe

      From the last time buzz wrote about cold fusion in 2010:

      Steven Krivit5:30 PM
      Buzz Skyline, what is your real name please?

      Steven B. Krivit
      Editor, New Energy Times


      Buzz Skyline5:43 PM
      Hello Steven,

      My name is James Riordon. We’ve met at a few APS conferences over the years.


      • Peter Roe

        Ah – the head of APS ‘media relations’, sometime ‘science writer’ and Bob Park mouthpiece. I’m not sure why we are even considering the vacuous utterances of such an obvious tro11.

        • GreenWin

          “Obvious tro11” AND infringer (parasite) of the PIXAR character Buzz Lightyear from the wonderful “Toy Story” series.

          ‘Buzz Skyline’ defines the fictitious leech-like status of APS media relations. Pathetic.

  • Roger Bird

    A change in perspective is rarely a scientific event. Conventional physicists will become LENR believers only when they are surrounded by people cheering that they saved X amount of money on their utility bills. I do not blame conventional physicists for being human. I do blame them if greed is the cause of their not wanting to look further and delaying the inevitable.

    • georgehants

      Roger-nothing wrong with scientists in their free time “being Human.”
      But when they are being paid to be “Scientists” then new rules apply that if they cannot follow they should find another job.
      The rules are, follow Evidence and if unsure do Research, (never take notice of opinion that overrides the above rules) and even then do not believe there is not another answer beyond that answer.

      • Roger Bird

        george, they are still going to be human even while they wear your expectation of how a scientist is going to behave. After all, you don’t have time to scientifically investigate every single lead that you encounter. They are going to use their deductive reasoning now and then in order to cut down on their work load. I don’t read everything. If someone tells me that they are tormented by beings from the Pleades, I am going to use deductive reasoning and suggest to them that they eat more fish oil (or something like that) and the tormentors will go away, rather than investigating their claims. I am using an extreme example in order to make a point. Mainstream hardcore physicists are likely to dismiss cold fusion rather than investigate it, since they think that it has already been debunked and since it completely, they think, runs up against the Coulomb barrier.

        And remember the grant funding, the job security, and the peer pressure. I have an advantage in not having any friends; no one can pressure me into not looking seriously into something. But most of these people have friends who are physicists, they go out drinking with them, they go to parties together, they invite them over to their houses, they may even marry one.

        Everyone is doing the very best that they are able, given the reality of their physical and mental environment.

        • georgehants

          Roger, good comment but just making excuses for scientists being totally unscientific and incompetent.
          I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
          All the best 🙂

          • Roger Bird

            Not quite. I excuse their humanity. I don’t excuse their unscientific failures. I am just looking/feeling a little deeper. I am fully aware that they are falling down on the job. But this is sort of the history of the dark side of science. I doubt that there has ever been a single, solitary break-thru that was not accompanied by this sort of unscientific crap that we are witnessing and will be witnessing even more in the future.

          • Omega Z

            I understand what your saying Roger.
            Science wallows in a rut until their Grudgingly pushed out to the next & so on.

  • Chris the 2nd

    What buzz skyline doesn’t seem to have grasped is that Nasa haven’t just caught the bug, they are actively licensing the technology.

    Which means that even if Widon-Larsen theory is wrong they still have a device that demonstrates excess energy. Even if we haven’t seen it.

    • MK

      Chris, you stated:

      they are actively licensing the technology.
      they still have a device that demonstrates excess energy.

      Can you please give a source?

      • Chris the 2nd

        If it’s on the Nasa technology gateway they are seeking to license at the very least patents, that’s the point of the website, and if they have been granted a patent that means they have a device.

        • LCD

          I think that device assumes that a LENR reactor is out there and this device they patented takes advantage of it. If memory serves.

  • GreenWin

    The American Physical Society APS appears to operate as the personal lap dog of Robert L. Park – the bellicose founder of the APS Washington Office and “Voodoo Science” author.

    “Patent Examiner Tom Valone was invited by the [U.S.] State Department to organize an April 1999 Conference on Free Energy to explore alternatives to fossil fuels, many of which were controversial. [Dr. Peter] Zimmerman [State Dept. weapons scientist] told an APS gathering that Park asked him to put a stop to it.

    ‘The week before I was to start [at the State Department] Bob [Park] sends me an e-mail, in which he tells me in some detail about the Conference on Free Energy under the sponsorship of the Secretary of State’s Open Forum. It says, ‘Pete, if you can’t get that killed, what’s the point of having you at the State Department?’

    Read this entire article to see how APS descends into political corruption of American science:


    APS gofer Buzz “Skyline” writes with the loft of a single story.

  • Job001

    Once again we need to characterize what an excellent scientist is and is not. An excellent scientist is “Non – Biased” because they need to evaluate data for and against the “Null hypothesis” without bias. If they are biased they are doing marketing, not science.
    Buzz Skyline is an extremely biased marketer, not a scientist. This can easily be determined from his extreme ignorance highly biased phony statement “I am sad – horrified really – to learn that some NASA scientists have caught cold fusion madness.”
    It matters not that he may be employed in a competing business that calls his position “scientist”. His extreme bias is that of marketing, NOT science.

    • Roger Bird

      Job001, I agree 110%. If Luke Skywalker-Buzz-Line is horrified, that is a very certain sign of bias. But I am not sure that marketing is the bias. I think that he is allowing reputation and opinion get in the way of clear thinking. If people were way more accepting, then they would not be terrified if someone was pursuing an unpopular line of investigation. It would be more like, “Hey, Smith is looking into cold fusion.” “Cool. What’s for lunch?” Instead, it is terror that someone is doing something that is edgy, perhaps even bigfootish, unpopular, not accepted. It is sort of middle schoolish. I have always thought that scientists were morally, emotionally, and socially retarded. Hanging out with you cold fusion folks has made me forget this.

    • Omega Z

      On 1 hand I think I wouldn’t make a very good Scientist. I would be looking for a specific answer which would indicate I’ve started out Biased.

      On the other hand If I couldn’t prove something I wouldn’t rule it out as impossible. I would leave the door open that someone else may take a different approach & prove it.

      On the other hand I assume all Scientists are probably biased to some degree. So whats the difference.

      And on the other hand I have a problem. I have to many hands. I may be a freak, Possibly an Alien.

      Seriously- When I think of a Good Scientist, I think of Robert Duncan of the University of Missouri.

      On the show 60 Minutes, He went in thinking Cold Fusion. Wasn’t that debunked.
      After looking at the Evidence(Most wont do this)- He thought, Something is happening here that needs to be studied. This- In My Humble Opinion is a Good Scientist. Actually a Great Scientist. He can over come his own biased view. We need more of his type.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer


      • Peter Roe

        +1. As you say, the ability to admit that your knowledge and world view may be incomplete or plain wrong is one of the hallmarks of a real scientist. Its definitely a rarity.

  • Shane D.

    I guess this Buzz guy expects NASA to ignore their own 1989 replication of the FP heat effect, which NASA again duplicated in a 2008 experiment?

    If they didn’t explore this phenomenon after seeing it with their own eyes… NASA would be guilty of dereliction of duty. They produce excess heat twice, can’t explain it and then proceed to study it further and Buzz has a problem with that!

    Sounds like these NASA scientists working on LENR are doing exactly what we U.S. taxpayers expect of them: think outside the box in furtherance of space exploration.

    On a side note; just read an article in Popular Science about another NASA scientist that is studying “Warp Travel” and takes it very seriously. I wonder if Buzz has a problem with that? It’s out there yes, but hey I want scientists leaving no stone unturned in their quest for the exotic.

    • Roger Bird

      Outstanding point, but I am going to guess the Luke Skygoof isn’t even aware of the many unexplained successes, including and especially the one that NASA had. And if he is aware, he doesn’t want to even think about it because it causes him to have cognitive dissonance. Luke Skygoof’s idea of “scientific” is to fall in line with the consensus of opinion. And NASA’s idea of “scientific” is to pursue with complete candor and vigor any leads that might help space flight, no matter how unpopular it is.

    • Omega Z


      I Saw that on NASA Website some time ago.
      The researchers are looking at many loop holes in the laws of physics that may allow such travel. There biggest concern has been Energy density of existing Fuel sources. LENR anybody…

      Their Guesstimate time frame for this is 50 to 100 years & Estimated travel time of about 2 weeks to travel 4 light years distance.
      Without the Time Distortion Thingy.
      Actually the Time Distortion would be Cool-
      If they could do it in reverse.
      Just so I could be on the blogs- Labeled the believer
      Arguing with the Non-Believers.
      Waiting for the Report… 🙂
      Every Paradox is the same.

      • Ryan

        The most interesting thing I gleaned from reading about the project is that they previously thought they would need a Jupiter sized mass of energy to create any warp bubble at all but after recalculating they now think it might only take the equivalent of 500kg of mass to create a usable warp bubble at our scale. Right now they’re just trying to detect naturally occuring warp bubbles to create a proof of concept and then attempt to scale up from there. I’m hoping they are successful as I’d love to be able to see the beginning of an age with that technology.

  • atanguy

    After NASA,here is the US NAVY involvement with LENR:
    The patent follows the known work of the US Navy in San Diego. It concerns mainly the production of particles(Gammas, protons, neutrons)that can be used for medical treatment, transmutations and also treatment of nuclear waste (transmutation of radionuclides).
    This is a very detailed work that shows LENR experiments that any scientist “Non – Biased” can reproduces easily. Probably not at the APS…

  • GreenWin

    Buzz Skyline and the American Physical Society take a dim view of unorthodox science, especially Robert L. Park – the bellicose founder of the APS Washington Office, and author of “Voodoo Science.” The following is from the Village Voice article chronicling cold fusion patent applications:

    “Patent Examiner Tom Valone was invited by the [U.S.] State Department to organize an April 1999 Conference on Free Energy to explore alternatives to fossil fuels, many of which were controversial. [Dr. Peter] Zimmerman [State Dept. weapons scientist] told an APS gathering that Park asked him to put a stop to it.

    ‘The week before I was to start [at the State Department] Bob [Park] sends me an e-mail, in which he tells me in some detail about the Conference on Free Energy under the sponsorship of the Secretary of State’s Open Forum. It says, ‘Pete, if you can’t get that killed, what’s the point of having you at the State Department?’ ”

    APS blogger Buzz “Skyline” writes with all the loft of a… single story. 🙂

    • Roger Bird

      There is really nothing new about establishment science taking a dim view of “unorthodox” science. Remember that they are inundated with numerous inventors who think that they have something really great when in fact they don’t. They may be better organized now than in past centuries. The worst part is that they may be better paid now than in past centuries, and thus have more to lose.

  • Roger Bird

    “We don’t need no stinking government intervention.” — taken directly out of the movie “Treasure of Sierra Madre”, with appropriate alterations. If there are sincere people at NASA who want to do this, good for them; I hope they go for it. Not everyone in government bureaucracies is an idiot and a tyrant. But otherwise, I fear government intrusion in this particular case. I want them to not know it is happening until the King of Bhutan gives his stamp of approval and starts buying a bunch of E-Cats and starts dismantling a few dams. (poetic symbolism)

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    BuzzWord of the century. If the present increase in the frequency of use of the word “sustainable” continues, by 2061 every sentence will include the word. If the present trend continues until 2109, then the word “sustainable” will be the only word remaining in the English language.


    • Roger Bird

      This is one example of why I like Iggy.

    • Ken

      ROFL…..sustainable use of the word sustainable. There’s free energy for you right there.

  • Omega Z

    I am sad – horrified really – to learn that some NASA scientists have caught cold fusion madness.

    POOR Buzz Skyline

    Popped his head up & saw his shadow. Back into his hole. Sorry Folks.
    6 more weeks of denial until the Spring Report.

    Should we inform him of Mitsubishi, Toyota, SPAWAR, NRL, University of IL. University of Missouri/Robert Duncan, DARPA, DOD, Even the DOE has become involved & Dozens of others.

    He could Add Terrified to his Statement. Unless he suffered overload & his head explodes.

    • Warthog

      “Should we inform him of Mitsubishi, Toyota, SPAWAR, NRL, University of IL. University of Missouri/Robert Duncan, DARPA, DOD, Even the DOE has become involved & Dozens of others.”

      Ah, but you see these are EXPERIMENTAL proofs. We all know now that THEORY takes precedence over EXPERIMENT in the world of the APS. Unless experiments match theory, they will be denied, denigrated, and embargoed.

      Of course, nowhere else in the world of science is that the case, but…….

      • that is exactly wher thomas kuhn have found.
        Ther no evidence of “anomaly” in an old-theory can be accepted until there is a perfect , all encompassing, theory .

        LENR still have not a chance to be recognized by science. no way, forget it.

        only way is industrial.
        ask the Wright brothers.

  • Omega Z

    SO, He TOLD ME Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof.

    So I invite him over to see my Olympic Size pool full of Boiling Water.

    When He arrives, He said- Boil me a Cup of Tea. And I will drink it.
    Then Boil me another Cup of Tea.

    Shish… I thought they said Extraordinary.

    Pardon Me. I have to go buy some Tea… 🙁

  • From the Village Voice News: ‘Zimmerman told an APS gathering that Park asked him to put a stop to it.

    “The week before I was to start [at the State Department] Bob [Park] sends me an e-mail, in which he tells me in some detail about the Conference on Free Energy under the sponsorship of the Secretary of State’s Open Forum. It says, ‘Pete, if you can’t get that killed, what’s the point of having you at the State Department?’ ” ‘

    I am struggling to express how much this sickens me without having to resort to retching. Mr. Park is one of the century’s greatest trolls.

    • georgehants

      Zedshort, unfortunately not just Cold Fusion that is effected.
      On Vortex there are still a few crackpots trying to deny The Placebo Effect with “opinion” despite the overwhelming Research Evidence.

  • “there should be some evidence of transmutation”

    What planet is this guy from. There is lots of evidence of transmutation.

    I am not a physicist, and have no bone in the “which theory” debate. However, when the idiot physicists get past having to have a theory, and start at the start, then we’ll make progress. The start is — there is a phenomenon. Once we realize that there is a phenomenon, then we can look at theory wisely.

  • pg


    • I went back through a bunch of APS spokesman Robert Park’s monthly columns. I learned he believes “Jesus Christ was an itinerant healer,” and that “acupuncture doesn’t work.” Most tellingly, the very day before North Korea launched its Tae Dong missile, he said they didn’t have one and couldn’t launch it. Mainstream media doesn’t take note of Park’s error-ridden history, but at The American Reporter, I certainly do .

  • Ken

    Ok first of all this is a load of bunk. Another example of why our scientific community is such a failure. May i point out their number one folly? First off, there has never been any evidence of transmutation….. “which he says has not been reported in any peer reviewed journals.” If science criticizes even the involvement in researching a specific subject, how on earth do they expect it to show up in a Peer Reviewed Journal?

    How long can we stand by and watch our so called Scientific leaders scoff at LENR instead of studying it for themselves? This isn’t Science! They violate the principles of Science every day. Notice they don’t ever say that there isn’t an anomalous effect. Instead they refuse to be true scientists by trying to identify and explore the reasons for that effect.

    When I read reports like this, it makes me embarrassed to be associated with such a mucked up establishment. We’ve forgotten the true purpose of science and that purpose is to understand the forces at work in our universe in order to improve our way of life while being good stewards of the planet god gave us.


  • georgehants

    Apollo-era NASA officials say climate change research ‘corrupted’ by politics and special interests.
    Our main objective of determining to what extent CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere can cause detrimental global warming has led us to an objective conclusion that this issue is not settled science. Unfortunately, the scientific progress on this issue has been corrupted by political and special interest influences that determine where our research dollars get spent. Political influences in government sponsored research have focused climate change research on CO2 rather than a broader range of factors that need better definition.

    • Roger Bird

      It got corrupted mainly because it scares people and got out into the public’s collective mind, partly because moral retards like Al Gore decided to get the public’s attention. No one was scared when Wegener said that the continents were drifting. No one cared except a few scientists. Likewise with quantum physics and just about every other new science pronouncement. This one, AGW, got people’s attention, and Gore et. al. lied and said that it was settled science and the public worships scientists (rather than the scientific method).

      • Peter Roe

        This particular fairytale serves some extremely useful political purposes of course, just as various seemingly staged acts of ‘terrorism’ are doing, and scary (but nonexistant) ‘pandemics’ have done in the recent past.


        • Roger Bird

          Remember that these events may serve certain people or groups, but that does not mean that they are fake. For example, the cholesterol phobia serves Big Pharma, but that does not mean that the don’t believe the cholesterol myth, and it does not mean that the board of directors of these companies don’t also take Lipitor. (I hope that they will take Lipitor by the gallon and DIE!) In the case of cholesterol, there are many doctors and researchers (and sales personnel) who believe the cholesterol phobia myth. I hear of too many people who think that Columbine or Aurora did not happen. That is nonsense. But people will use it for their own ends and the media will focus on it just so they can sell newspapers.

          • Peter Roe


            (Due disclosure: the link points to one of my websites!)

          • Roger Bird

            Are you the author if this most excellent article?

          • Peter Roe

            Sadly, no. The author is Dr. Malcolm Kendrick – a rare voice of reason in the medical world.


          • Roger Bird

            So, that is your website. I don’t suppose that you noticed that right in the middle of that cholesterol myth busting article there is an advertisement about how to lower cholesterol.

            I have to add that cholesterol is expensive stuff; it takes a lot of energy for the body to make. So, it makes sense that people who are weak and on their way out of this world would have trouble keeping up with making enough cholesterol.

          • Peter Roe

            I’m in the process of removing the google ads. Someone told me that having them would increase the site’s ‘ranking’, but they are a waste of space. Loading each page in turn so I can strip out the code is rather tedious though, so I usually find something else to do quite quickly.

        • GreenWin

          Ha! Quite the battle for mindshare in process. Would it not be fascinating to discover that the preponderance of the human mind, allows these “crises” to feed at the energetic trough? i.e., should the thought or fear of any negative element be extinguished, it has no purchase in human experience.

          Dr. Steve Greer will announce the DNA expert’s analysis of a tiny creature that arguably appears extra-terrestrial, tomorrow! At the premier of his “Sirius” documentary. Greer suggests the “alien invasion” thesis, is false flag, just like Swine flu, global terror, finance etc.

          Lots of storytellers at work these days! None shall prevent my sail to the Seychelles and happy diving there!

          “Fear can keep us up all night long, but faith makes one fine pillow.”

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, just say a privilege to have you on page.

          • GreenWin

            Thank you George, for these kind words.

          • Peter Roe

            Efforts to construct a fictitious reality seem to be reaching a rather desperate crescendo in the US just now. Judging by the rate of propagation of the actual facts surrounding a succession of ‘incidents’ the perpetrators may have overplayed their hand recently – unless that too is part of the psyops.

            I am looking forward to what Dr Greer has to say – and to further genetic evidence from the ‘star child’ skull (www.starchildproject.com/).

            I am jealous to a deep shade of green of your forthcoming sailing voyage to the Seychelles. About the most exotic locations my boat can take me to are Birmingham or Market Harborough. Neither is famed for its coral sand beaches or warm crystal clear water.

          • georgehants

            You guys seem to keep up with things as well.
            Does it matter if many of them turn out to be just good fun.
            Where is the life in denying everything.
            I must ask Peter and Greenwin, have you come across Seth by Jane Roberts.

          • Peter Roe

            Yes, but this stuff is rather outside my current paradigm (to use your disliked word) so I haven’t gone into it in any depth.

          • georgehants

            Peter, With a very critical open-mind I am very impressed with Seth.
            I spend a lot of time trying to understand his writings.
            If it is junk, it is far better than any man made junk so I am happy to “waste my time.”

          • GreenWin

            I am aware, though not read. I am familiar with certain works of “metaphysics” such as those of hizzhonor Sir Isaac Newton’s furtive dabbles in alchemy.

          • GreenWin


            I note that such voyage down the River Welland passes through Welland Park, home to formal rose and “sensory” gardens. If only the elite of our science community would voyage with you… and find some common sense there!

          • Peter Roe

            Sadly the elite wouldn’t smell a thing over the diesel fumes, or hear anything over the thumping engine – which I suppose is rather poetically analogous to their real circumstances.

          • GreenWin

            You conjure the image of the famed “African Queen;” you as Charlie Allnut, and the elite as Rose Sayer!

            Surely, together we can open their (Rose’s) eyes to the world of New Fire.

          • Peter Roe

            If Katharine Hepburn was on board I’d give it my best try!

    • GreenWin

      Methinks there is rebellion from NASA’s manned space veterans. They are calling BS on the redirection of funds from space exploration to political activism on Earth (e.g. AGW)

      It is well worth a look at this synopsis of science historian Spencer Weart’s, “The Discovery of Global Warming.” It chronicles the adoption of climate science as an effective political tool; jump to The discovery of climate change sub head:


      • georgehants

        They may be a bit peeved that in the old days NASA did a little more than send a toy car to Mars that apparently does nothing but send back splendid photographs of itself that could have been done in their backyard.
        When it does send back strange and interesting photographs of objects there is a customary complete silence from the NASA experts except the usual, camera smear, marsh gas, etc. etc.
        If I where them I would feel just as disappointed with the fall in research quality.

  • georgehants

    Science News
    … from universities, journals, and other research organizations
    Photons Run out of Loopholes: Quantum World Really Is in Conflict With Our Everyday Experience.
    — A team led by the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger has now carried out an experiment with photons in which they have closed an important loophole. The researchers have thus provided the most complete experimental proof that the quantum world is in conflict with our everyday experience.

  • georgehants

    April 21st, 2013 at 3:05 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    Some one around says that you, as italian, are waiting for an Italy stable government to autorize third party report.
    Please, retreat from this intention, may be the end of E-Cat.
    Nicely, Giuseppe
    Andrea Rossi
    April 21st, 2013 at 3:30 AM
    Dear Giuseppe:
    Please do not listen to these guys: what they say is one of the biggest stupidity I have heard of in these last weeks. Our company ( Leonardo Corp) is a USA company, our Partner is a USA Company, our business is mainly developed in the USA and in Europe our strategy in the short term is a development mainly in Sweden, where we are putting strong bases. The Government of Italy has absolutely nothing to do with us, whatever it is or it will be. We, as Leonardo Corporation, will maintain in Italy only a R&D Center, in Ferrara. The Third Indipendent Party Report, as I explained many times, for the fact that is “indipendent” does not depend on me, does not depend on me the content, does not depend on me the date of the publication, does not depend on me where it will be published. One only thing is pretty sure, because the Professors have been adamant about this: it will be published. I imagine ( and underline IMAGINE) that, since the test is finished on the 23rd of March, 2-3 weeks have been necessary to write the report, so the report should be not far from being ready; then there is the reviewing time, I have not idea of the time it takes. I want not absolutely to disturb the Professors contacting them, that would not be deontologically correct. This very superficial demand of a quick publication of this Report is a ripercussion of the fact that in the LENR field it is the first time that an industrial module is examined by a Third Indipendent Party, and there is not experience of the necessary timeframes. Think to all the other fields of Physics, and compare: you will see that the time between a test and the publication of a third indipendent party takes minimum a month, maximum several months.
    Warm Regards,

    • David

      “italian” and “stable government” are opposite terms

      • Roger Bird

        Big egos always mean trouble. They destabilize any group.

    • Peter Roe

      Confusing answer, in light of earlier hints, and now apparently misinterpreted remarks. So in fact only testing (second round) was complete by March 23 – not writing the paper, which in turn means that it may not even have been submitted to a journal yet, i.e., no peer review, not even any guarantee of acceptance. According to this we are way upstream of where we thought be were – so far upstream that the process of publication apparently has not really started at all.

      As has been previously pointed out, editors may reject such a controversial paper, meaning sequential resubmissions to second and third choice journals – a process that could itself add months to the publication process. Even if it is accepted by a brave editor, reviewers may refuse to allow it, demand more experiments or otherwise stonewall, and even if all goes well publication could still take many months.

      Suddenly we seem to be almost back to square one.

      • Ken

        So in your vast wisdom, what are you proposing Rossi do? You know that an independent report is just that; Independent. How are you adding a negative light to this? He cannot make the scenario happen any quicker. Like he said, it’s not in his hands. Whether or not the report gets published in the Journals or how long it takes is out of Rossi’s or our hands. All we can do is trust that the scientific community will be objective in this case. Which is what worries me the most. Rossi allowed an independent review to take place. He did his part.


        • Peter Roe


          I’m just pointing out (in my vast wisdom) that it is possible to interpret Rossi’s latest words in a way that is not consistant with the story as we currently understand it. This may or may not mean anything, but examination of ‘Rossi says’ and speculation are what we do here, in the absence of firm facts. Its all just froth of course – only events in the real world will confirm or otherwise what the real situation is. Hopefully we’ll find out soon.

      • Roger Bird

        Yes, what you say is all true, except the confusing part. I thought that he was crystal clear and helped me understand what is going on. It was sort of a review of where “we” are at right now, with the business and such. And what you say makes absolutely perfect sense (except the confusing part). It forces me to say that we may have to wait quite a while. HOPEFULLY, we won’t all forget that this is to happen, and that eventually if it never happens we just all give up and stop paying him the attention that he may crave if he is crazy and has been fooling us (which I doubt). If it is all real, then something wonderful is going to happen soon. It took 9 months each time something wonderful happened in my family, so I guess 3 weeks is asking a lot of the universe of publications.

        • Peter Roe

          Only ‘confusing’ because (as you say) this latest pronouncement is very clear, but appears to directly contradict earlier statements, for example (bolding mine):

          Andrea Rossi
          March 29th, 2013 at 1:01 PM

          Dear Brian:
          I do not know when the publication will be made, but I suppose around the half of April: the peer reviewing is in course since December, when the third indipendent tests had begun, remember? Then a second phase has been made, but the reviewing was already in course and substantially the work has been the same. The last cycle of 120 hours has been a “replica” to make sure the results were real.
          Warm Regards,

          The publication of this paper is unimportant compared with the installation of a prototype hot cat plant, but I have increasing doubts that this event will be reported or proven in any way (at least not for some considerable time) other than via more ‘Rossi says’.

          As I’ve suggested before, there doesn’t seem to be any commercial logic to disclosing anything until the partner is ready to license the tech or to sell CF generators into the open market. This might take a far longer time than anyone seems to be anticipating.

          • I don’t see a contradiction between this and the new statement. Peer review is an iterative process. In this case, an early iteration required making new measurements. There is no guarantee that making those measurements yields acceptance directly, instead of a new iteration round about the wordings used, etc.

            Judging from the knowledge that the first referee comments were received less than 6 weeks after the first measurement campaign ended (i.e. writing the first version and receiving referee comments for it took less than 6 weeks), it seems that both the authors and the referees are making an attempt to work fast. But it’s like selecting a pope. Outsiders can only guess when the white smoke comes out.

            I would say that chances are that we might see the report before the end of this month. It might also be rejected, in which case they have to decide whether to submit it to another prestigious journal or to an ordinary journal. In the latter case they have the option of putting the preprint into arxiv. In that case we might see it fast also.

          • Peter Roe


            I hope you’re right, but I took Rossi’s statement…

            “I imagine ( and underline IMAGINE) that, since the test is finished on the 23rd of March, 2-3 weeks have been necessary to write the report, so the report should be not far from being ready; then there is the reviewing time, I have not idea of the time it takes.”

            …to mean that the team have only now finished writing their paper and have yet to submit it to a journal. In other words, that the process of getting published has not yet begun.

            If in fact Rossi means that it has now been re-written to accommodate peer review comments and suggestions, and has only to go back to the referees for final checking, then we should indeed see the published paper quite soon. I’m just not entirely convinced that this is what his words mean.

          • GreenWin

            Peter, I think you over-interpret all these statements. These test comments are subject to Rossian language errata. A “third” independent Party Report(sorry cannot use the AR spelling) means to me, they’ve had at the e-cat three full rounds. Some, likely hoping for error or failure to arise, thus tanking or resetting the entire process.

            As I have said for long now, this paper and its publication pale in the face of a working commercial device. THAT is something we can readily evaluate at month’s end delivery. I look forward to the amazed faces of the first who get to see this unit in operation.

            And one never knows what tomorrow brings.

          • Peter Roe


            You’re probably right – it’s just that Rossi does seem to have a habit of moving the furniture around in a very low-key way, from time to time.

            I agree that the installation of a pilot plant is vastly more important than the paper, but I have a worrying feeling that this event may also fall short of what seems to be expected.

          • I think that by “third independent party report” AR means “the third party report” alias “the independent party report”. When he tries to make things doubly unambiguous in writing, the result is (doubly) confusing. Anyway it’s a detail.

          • Roger Bird

            There is no reason to believe that Andrea Rossi is an expert on peer reviewed journalism. After all, there were no peer reviewed journals when fire was invented, so he has nothing to compare it with. But, seriously, he is not expected to be an expert on everything (unlike me) (joke). But I agree that it is dismaying. But I am dismayed that my back still hurts. I am dismayed that I didn’t win the lottery this week. I am dismayed that Kim Kardashian didn’t come to my front door this morning and over me all of her wealth and her body. Life is just full of disappointments that we have to accept. (:->)

          • Peter Roe

            Oh – were you expecting Kim? Only she’s been at my place all week, which is why my typing is a bit shaky. I’ll pass on your dismay to her.

          • GreenWin

            Might not this cause a waving of arms and discoloration from Mrs. Roe??

          • Peter Roe

            OK, you got me. I ‘mis-spoke’ as Hillary Clinton would say.

          • Peter Roe

            My fantasy lies in smoking ruins.

    • Roger Bird

      “deontological” = (from wikipedia) Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek deon, “obligation, duty”; and -logia) is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action’s adherence to a rule or rules.[1] It is sometimes described as “duty” or “obligation” or “rule” -based ethics, because rules “bind you to your duty”.[2] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism.[3] Deontological ethics is also contrasted to pragmatic ethics.

      So now we know that Rossi’s degree in philosophy is real. Not that I ever doubted it.

      “deontological” does NOT mean the opposite of “ontological”, which is a part of philosophy.

      • georgehants

        Three of the worst words in the English language.
        And the worst —
        All just to make out how clever these people are when perfectly plain words would suffice.

        • Peter Roe

          Sorry George, but I like the word ‘paradigm’. I particularly like the phrase ‘paradigm shift’ which I take to mean the result of having the carpet yanked out from under — something I hope we will soon be able to enjoy watching in the scientific world!

          • georgehants

            Peter, but look at the spelling, o’dear now I am upset.

        • Roger Bird

          But george, I actually mean them when I use them. (:->)

          • Peter Roe

            I’d use them too – if I knew what they meant.

          • Roger Bird

            To be honest with you, and in humour that is definitely no fun, I don’t really quite understand ‘ontology’, and the worst part is that I don’t understand ontology because I think that it is bunk every time I read the definition. (:->)

          • georgehants

            When into epistemology comes things such as intuition etc. respecting the Wonderful insights of geniuses such as Ramanujan etc. then I will be happy to use it myself.

          • Roger Bird

            The people who read about LENR and don’t actually do it, we are all practicing epistemology, trying to figure out how it is that we know something. Do we take someone’s word for it? Or do we take someone’s theory about how it can’t work? Etc.

          • georgehants

            Roger, I think we are both just looking for the Truth.

    • Dear God, pleaae don’t make us wait more months for the validation (third party) report. It’s been painful just waiting through April!

      • Roger Bird

        I am positive that God wants a bunch of boffins and boffin-wannabes like us to learn patience. God is quite keen on character development. (:->)

  • It is not in the book but it’s better to have a draft look (sung by a bass chorus in a Monty Python freemason rite sketch). Should be show to writes like “Buzz”.

    • I remembered wrong, it was Hale and Pace, and the words also… but the sketch is in youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBnzp4OkDD4

      • GreenWin

        Pekka, thank you for this irreverent humor. 🙂 I believe the phrase you recall is “He wants to do it by the book, let’s just take a crafty look!”

        In either case it brings a smile!

        • edog


  • Alan DeAngelis

    Regardless of whether or not WLT is true, Tadahiko Mizuno did see isotopic shifts in palladium taking place [my pet idea is that they are due to Oppenheimer-Phillips reactions taking place, Pd(N) (d,p) Pd(N+1)]. Oh, but I forgot, Mizuno must be wrong because the APS is infallible.

    • robiD

      Domenico Cirillo also measured a flux of (slow) neutrons escaped from an electrolytic cell:


      This is a peer review paper (the reviewed process took almost a year) and Allan Widom appears as author.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah rodiD, and they used something as elegant and inexpensive as CR-39. The evidence for LENR is overwhelming to anyone who isn’t overwrought with envy.

  • georgehants

    Sunday, April 21, 2013
    LENR and Muon Catalyzed Fusion
    Reading about low energy nuclear reactions, (LENR), I came across several theoretical references to protons capturing heavy electrons and then participating in nuclear reactions as a result. The heavy electron, because it sits in a much tighter orbit around a proton, serves to shield the proton’s positive charge from other unsuspecting nuclei until the proton has crept in close enough to fuse with them via the strong force. In modern day LENR parlance, it is speculated that these sufficiently heavy electrons exist in materials, (condensed matter), as a result of Bloch oscillations, (more on these later), leading to a higher effective electron mass.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “In 1772 the residents of Luce in France reported that rock had fallen from the sky, causing considerable damage. During the resulting investigation by the Academie Francaise, the respected chemist Antoine Lavoisier pronounced with absolute certainty that the stone could not have fallen from the sky, because there are no stones in the sky. The strength of Lavoisier’s conviction was such that it helped put back the scientific study of meteorites for over a quarter of a century.”
    -From the editors of Reader’s Digest Quest for the Unknown Series volume “Bizarre Phenomena”