Discovery Article Pours Doubt on Rossi's 'Cold Fusion'

The Discovery Channel’s web site has come out with an article by Jesse Emspak (which features a large picture of Andrea Rossi at at its head) titled “5 Reasons Cold Fusion is Bunk”.

The five reasons listed in the article for being skeptical about Rossi and the E-Cat are :

1. The Coulombe barrier — only possible with super high temperatures and massive brute force, such as in the stars)

2. Gamma Rays — two inches of lead shielding would be needed to stop 96 percent of gamma rays from a fusion reaction, and Rossi would be very sick if even only four percent of gamma rays escaped from his device. There didn’t seem to be any shielding in his reactor.

3. Transmutation — there would need to be new elements coming out of the machine if cold fusion was occurring. Rossi said initially that nickel is being transmutated to copper — not even supernovas can do that)

4. Testing — during the test the reactor was never disconnected from the mains power even when their equipment measured no power was being consumed. The team did not test for a hidden DC wire.

5. Catalyst — Rossi has not disclosed the catalyst he is using claiming it is a trade secret and this is a red flag.

My initial response to this article is that Rossi isn’t claiming that what is going on in his reactor is cold fusion as is often described — a desktop version of the sun. He says he prefers the term low energy nuclear reaction, but that is a rather vague term. We really have no idea about his theory. He does say that gamma rays are being produced, but are somehow thermalized in the reactor and produced no dangerous radiation. Transmutation, Rossi now says, is a minimal side-effect of the reaction, and not the main cause of the energy production. As for the testing issue, that has been discussed at length. Torbjorn Hartman said he did thorough checks for hidden sources of energy, but found none. Hanno Essen said he didn’t think of doing so. We know the catalyst is secret, and yes, it’s a problem for people who want to understand and replicate the E-Cat — but keeping a part of the technology secret does not have a bearing on whether it works or not.

My own position is that Rossi has a technology that works as he says, but we know very little about how or why it does. The recent tests go a long way to bear out his claims and only can be called into question on the assumption that deep fraud is involved — and personally, I don’t see evidence to make me believe that it is.

  • Mcloki

    1. How can Discovery claim that. There may be many undiscovered ways to mitigate the Coulombe barrier. And that’s the end of their article. That’s going to go down in history. ” no one needs more than 512 k of ram.

    • Janne

      The problem is that they assume the E-Cat can be explained through our current understanding of physics (it can’t).

      • Mcloki

        So there’s nothing new to be discovered declares Discovery magazine. Like I said. A quote for the history books.

        • Adam Lepczak

          LoL…
          This is an epic sarcasm Mcloki. You are exactly right though…

        • EduardoRG

          You are right: I think Rossi´s case should be kept in history to show that sentences as: “It can not be explain… so it´s not possible… it can´t happen” and “It doesn´t fit in normal physics´s laws” doesn´t mean: “It is a scam !!!!”

          Traditional physics tries to put everything inside a box, when what we have to do RIGHT NOW is to think outside the box.

          I wonder what happened to Edison when he invented the light bulb ??? I am sure there were people as this man Jesse Emspak from Discovery. They were in front of a turned on light bulb, shining in front of him, having a shower of light, but he probably said: “It is NOT possible !!!! it can not work !!!” just because Edison doesn´t tell him what the wire inside the light bulb was made of. Come on !!! If Edison told everyone what was that wire made of, he would have lost the whole business !!!! You can not charge someone as a scam because he doesn´t tell you his most valuable business secret.

          So far everything goes well with Rossi, let him be and work in his own way. If they don´t like it, it is not their business !!! (literally talking)

          • TJK

            I disagree. I think the E-CAT can be explained with convenional physics. Right now there have been multiple and repeatable experiments with D-Pd reactions. In those they don’t have high gamma but they do get some transmutations. Deuteriam is Hydrogen plus a Neutron and Pd is like Ni in that it’s a hydride. Since those experiments and patents are proven I see no reason to doubt a similar reaction with H-Ni. Rossi is the not the only one doing this by the way and I wouldn’t be surprised if a well-funded entity jumps onto the scene eventually.

          • Theri74

            If you think it is a few months and we will see the result.
            In any case the scamers ask for money is not pasaplicable for AR.

  • Jonas

    Question – all of the mentioned methods of fraud, in this article and elsewhere (e.g. radiated energy, hidden wires and measurment errors) – could they give this much of an effect, individually, or even combined? Then fraud is possible. But have the critics crunched those numbers?

    And a hidden wire – would he have a generator somewhere in or around the facility, or could one not simply check with the electric company what amounts of electricity has gotten into his building at the time of the testing? It must be quite substantial to reach those temperatures over that long time..?

    • Jonas

      By the way, it seems a lot of critique works under the assumption that this was a scientific test aimed at explaining the phenomenon – to the best of my knowledge this was never the case, right? Rossi has a mysterious box generating a lot of heat, with not much power going into it – is this true, yes, it appears to be; that was the whole premise.

      • AB

        No, it wasn’t and is made clear in the paper. But pathoskeptics don’t care about a fair evaluation of the evidence, they care about protecting their beliefs which state the cold fusion is pseudoscience.

        See http://i.imgur.com/bPzARpx.jpg

  • sh1964

    A very weak piece, still repeating the ‘miracles’ of the colomb barrier and lack of gamma. Shows a serious lack of investigation of the current state of research.

    • artefact

      This article trys to seperate Cold Fusion and LENR. They say that Rossi claims to be using Cold Fusion which “can not work” but LENR works and is very interesting.
      I’m just not sure why they did not mention the W&L theory. It would fit in this article……

      • Marc

        Cold fusion under Rossi scam and if ya cant see it there is no helping you Lenr under Nasa or Cambridge uni real and will be here soon enough unlike Rossi and co hiding out with all the ill gotten gains although if I bump into him its curtains for him lol oh sorry did I put a lol I ment curtains for him.

        • artefact

          My last sentence was sarcasm. Should be obvious. Though I’m not sure what you are saying. Its hard to read.

          • The Company

            i don’t like it when our posts are not uploaded when we take the time out of our day to share our opinion, this message is to the administrators of this website we will not tolerate another administrator not posting our thoughts and i will take drastic measures to make sure your website has a lot more “Opinions” e.g.End of conversations

            i suggest for your best interests to comply with our demands.

          • artefact

            sometimes posts get into moderation without a reason. If you wait a bit than the admin recovers it.

  • Blanco69

    They’re quite happy to insult our illustrious band of tester’s intelligence by implying that a hidden DC wire is the key Snr Rossi’s megafraud. But they seem to miss out the fact that this piece has been written without more than a cursory glance at the headlines. The Discovery brand does so much globally to inform us of the facts but, in this case, Discovery seems to have made up it’s mind BEFORE it actually discovers anything. Sweeping generalisations and poorly reseached assumptions are not what science should be about.
    Have they learned nothing? Well… actually, no, they know it all already.

    • Redford

      “They’re quite happy to insult our illustrious band of tester’s intelligence by implying that a hidden DC wire is the key Snr Rossi’s megafraud”

      Yes, this is kind of the big issue here. An article on a research is by nature a synthesis and if you want to investigate everything, you just have to be there or do research yourself. But for practical science, you assume that people writing their stuff are honest and science able unless provent otherwise. And if you think the otherwise prevails, you do have to prove it. It’s not an always-open-door-to-escape-from-dealing-with-the-experimental-results.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    1-3: classical CF criticisms based on the idea that it’s hot fusion (curious that they quote Krivit), not relevant to the arxiv paper
    4: From previous page, Hanno Essen states that DC power was ruled out by their combination of measurements. The device was also opened and the inner cylinder cut open on a lathe, contrary to what is claimed here.
    5: not relevant to the arxiv paper

    • Torbjörn

      You posted this on ecatnews.com

      “My favourite metatheory is: for some unknown reason Bose-Einstein condensation of hydrogen electrons in metal lattice defect, then consequently ultradense hydrogen formation (2-3 pm proton distance) a’ la Miley+Hora, then triple nucleon fusion p+p+Ni->Cu+p, enabled by high density and strongly modified Gamow factors due to strong electron shielding. No emission of hard gamma because two output particles, Cu and p which take energy and momentum. Beta+ decay might occur if Cu isotope is unstable, but it turns mostly to electron capture due to ultrahigh density so not so much 511 keV gamma is seen. OK, so weak interaction is involved in the beta decay, but anyway that’s not the primary reaction.”

      I have to say that this is the most plausible theory i have heard of. Btw, according to Rossi, low energy photons in the energy range 50-100 keV occur within the E-Cat.

      Rossi has mentioned lightning recently; Leif Holmlid believes that if lightning balls does exist, that they are made of Rydberg matter. Leif uses graphite as a catalyser in his experiments with deuterium.

      “3) The Bologna data on the power output is said to be gained through supplying D2-gas, which correspond to prediction iii).”
      http://www.roxit.ax/CN.pdf

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Thanks, I think that quotation is from some time ago. I would now like to add a speculation that perhaps BEC is not needed if hydrons can get nonlocal (similarly to normal delocalised electrons) and, following Rossi’s more recent remarks, maybe the main energy doesn’t come from nickel but from hydrogen going to helium or perhaps from p+Li7->2He4 if Li is present. But it’s still only a metatheory. I think experiments are necessary before one can really make progress with theory, especially what is the net reaction (the consumed and the ash).

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Replied and went to moderation. Summary: Maybe BEC not needed if hydrons could get nonlocal, similarly to delocalised electrons. Also, following AR’s recent remarks, maybe nickel doesn’t give main energy but perhaps hydrogen to helium or p+Li7->2He4 if Li is present. Experiment needed to make progress.

        • Sorry Pekka — and to others who have posted fine comments that get trapped in the moderator. It seems to be getting a mind of its own!

          • Ryan

            Moderator 2: Rise of the Moderators. Hasta Lavista comments.

      • Gerrit

        A while ago I thought that Rossi might have captured ball lighting in his tube.

        That would make everything so much easier. Rossi doesn’t do “new physics” he only captured a known natural phenomenon and put it in his tube.

        Benjamin Franklin would certainly like that.

  • AB

    BTW, the DC current fraud theory was dealt a serious blow by the following comment from Essén (spelling corrected):

    The only response for which Prof. Essén authorises publication is the following:

    “In the interview I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc (since the clamps could not detect such). This was a bit hasty. In future I will not answer such technical questions without conferring with all coautors. After analysing what we checked and measured (which were many more variables that those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude dc-current. (This is what comes from being nice to journalists.)”

    http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/05/ethics-of-e-cat.html?showComment=1369733204626#c7691737630487135094

  • cx

    Hasn’t pretty much every1 who works in this field said that its not cold fusion why do these media keep referring it as that and using that as the argument.

    • Pedro

      Seems like Krivit is high on the list of “specialists” in this field, so don’t be surprised if these negative articles “smell” Krivitish. He probably has a press-kit ready just in case somebody asks him about the e-cat.

    • fortyniner

      As no-one yet has a viable theory to explain the heat, nuclear fusion can’t yet be discounted as the basic mechanism. Due to language manipulation by various parties, the (media) terminology ‘cold fusion’ has acquired unfortunate associations with ‘quackery’, ‘pathological science’ and ‘conspiracy theory’ (all synthetic ‘psyops’ terms intended to disparage), so that the phrase cold fusion tends to be replaced by other terms by those involved.

      It’s also a fact that the phrase will trigger difficulties with publication and patent applications that need to be avoided.

  • John Littlemist
    • GreenWin

      john, all these complaints have been adequately shown to be false by the validation team – especially the main concern re a hidden DC voltage. The scientists checked for this and there was no secret voltage or current. We have 23 years of peer reviewed science supporting LENR – Rossi has simply found a way to amplify and control the effect for commercial purpose.

      E-CatHT is now in the hands of some big players who want to make money on commercialization. Hopefully the powerful green movement and good politicians will join hands in making the planet better for children and grandchildren. THAT is the ethical question now.

  • Jack

    Item 3 is flatly false.
    3. Transmutation — there would need to be new elements coming out of the machine if cold fusion was occurring. Rossi said initially that nickel is being transmutated to copper — not even supernovas can do that)

    All of the elements higher than lithium were created in stars. It is a central idea of modern cosmology that the elements are built up in giant stars and supernovas spread those elements throughout the universe.

    • Zedshort

      I think you meant to say “only” supernovas can do that. If normal stellar nucleosynthesis can’t do i and supernovas can’t do it then where do the heavier elements come from?

      • Jack

        No, all stars transmutate hydrogen to helium. Stars like our sun will eventually transmutate the helium to oxygen and carbon. Larger stars will fuse elements up to iron. A neutron star is effectively a single giant nucleus. A supernova is needed to create all elements larger than iron.

    • fortyniner

      In any case, if before and after analyses of the ‘fuel’ have been carried out, the results have not been published and the article writer has no information on which to base his disingenuous (and pointless) hit piece.

  • evleer

    The first three points are based on the same fallacy: trying to disprove a phenomenon using the same theory that doesn’t explain the phenomenon in the first place. One can summerize these arguments as: according to our theory it cannot exist, and therefore it doesn’t.
    4 – the usual ‘hidden wires’ argument
    5 – it’s also a red flag that Coca Cola never revealed their recipe completely. I have strong indications that it was all a big scheme to fool people into believing they were buying and drinking cola, while actually it was a big fraud, robbing gullible people from their money.

  • Bob

    Of the five reasons listed above, the only one which I am having trouble with is the gamma radiation. I think they have a point there and it has been something which is keeping me still sitting on the fence. It has been a major inconsitency all along.
    Long term followers of this saga will recall that the first ecats of two years ago were said to have gamma radiation as the source of the heat as it was absorbed into the surrounding structure and water jackets. It was also said that what prevented the technology being used to produce higher temperatures was that at higher temperaturs the gamma radiation increased to such a level that the device was unsafe. Most accepted the low operating temperature and therefore less gamma radiation was a smart move to get the technology accepted. A big deal was made of the tests which showed there was no radiation released and this was attributed in part to the lead shielding.
    I said a number of times that I would be more impressed if it was shown some gamma radiation was produced because it would prove some form of LENR was taking place. Such a test was never done, or if it was, it was not made public.
    Now we have a device which is operating well inside the temperature range which was previously avoided due, it was said, to excess gamma radiation, and what do we have? No gamma radiation. ???
    This is a major inconsistency in logic.
    If the output was milliwatts I could pass this off as being due to the low power level but for anything in the kilowatt range I find it hard to believe there would be no measurable radiation emitted.
    The only way I can reconcile this is to think that since I believe the coulomb barrier is being sidestepped rather than bulldozed, and whatever the circumstances are which might allow this, possibly do not result in the production of gamma radiation. Unfortunately, I see this as improbable at best, but then it seems the whole thing is improbable so if it turns out to be true, then it is reasonable to expect that a whole lot of improbable things may come along in the same package.
    So, at this point, my firm conclusion is,… I really don’t know. 🙂

    • Warthog

      “I don’t really know”. But you can and should. Forget about Rossi. There is plenty of experimental proof of the reality of the LENR phenomenon for the Pd/D2 system (less so for the Ni/H2 system). And that proof pretty conclusively proves that what is happening IS fusion. The “balanced equation” for the dominant overall process is:

      2D2 + quantum process —-> He4 + heat

      Sufficient quantitative data is available via. sufficiently accurate calorimetry that the heat yielded is very close to the mass deficit from the above reaction (24MEV/nucleon formed).

      The Discovery article are just the typical “hot fusion propagandist” talking points. This is discussed in some depth in Charles Beaudette’s excellent book “Excess Heat”. The physicists are insisting that the experimental evidence MUST match their (current) theories. It is obvious that “quantum fusion” is different from “thermonuclear fusion”.
      They have forgotten that it is experiment that gives proof….not theory.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        +1

    • adny

      There are ways that Rossi could have included shielding into his reactor which would make the measured output low. The black paint being applied could be radiation shielding consisting of tungsten powder paint or alike?

    • KD

      There were questions about melting of ceramics with steel jacket in burned reactor.
      Maybe instead of lead, Rossi is using some kind of ceramic to transfer gamma radiation into heat in 100%, so that might be the reason, that radiation was not detected outside.
      Just guessing.

      • fortyniner

        Actually I don’t believe that melting of ceramics has ever been mentioned in original sources, only melting of the (stainless) steel of the inner reactor tube at around 1450C.

        The ceramics used in the H1 reactor are specified in the paper. There is an outer shell of silicon nitride (thickness unspecified) housing a formed cylinder of corundum, which has channels to house the resistance elements, and a central hollow space for the reactor core.

        Corundum is a naturally occurring mineral, mostly aluminium oxide with traces of iron, titanium and chromium, that can be ground to powder and compressed then fired to form new shapes. It has been used to make carriers for heating elements for about 100 years as the open granular structure is lightweight and very resistant to thermal shock.

        • Bob

          Sorry for the late reply.
          On page 2 of the report in the description of figs 1-2 which are the impressive pics of the orange hot ecat; in the description it says in part “…melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers.”
          Someone questioned this on the Rossi blog because normally Nickel melts before ceramics melt, however, Rossi replied that the report is accurate, so in the words of Yoda, “Melted the ceramic was.”
          Actally, I don’t think Yoda was there, but if he was, then that’s what he would have said.
          The conclusion would have to be that the composition of the ceramic at the position it melted would have to be such that it’s melting point was lower than normal.
          Perhaps the ceramic might actually hold part of the active material.

  • John Di Turo

    Dr. Rossi does not claim that “cold fusion” is the source of the excess heat that his device produces. Your articles implication that he does , shows your biased intension to discredit his work and the others in the LENR field. The fact that the US Naval Research Center has validated LENR reactions for the past thirty years would not matter to someone who has been ordered to perform a public hatched job on potential energy source that will destabilize the oil and gas industry. Yes, everyone gets that point that there is no “cold fusion”, but that point is moot if what we are looking at is something completely different and new. It’s Ironic that you magazine is named “Discovery” , perhaps is should be called flat earth news.

    • No one has proved that it is “not cold fusion”. If it is positively established that the energy comes from liberated nuclear binding energy (as is not implausible given that chemical sources are ruled out and other possibilities would be more exotic), it’s actually difficult to see how it could not be “fusion”, taking into account that also reactions like p+Li7->2 He4 are traditionally named fusion although they also have a fission aspect. In any case, the name is only a semantic question. Of course, we are only talking about the net reaction, not necessarily implying that it resembles a traditional binary hot fusion reaction in the microphysical sense.

      • Allan Kiik

        “it’s actually difficult to see how it could not be “fusion””

        I am not a physicist, but I can see one easily testable/refutable way – what if it is actually alpha decay of Ni62? Normally this does not happen frequently enough but what if Rossi & others have found a way to multiply this tunneling probability. I really don’t understand why this should be less plausible than coulomb barrier penetration at low pressure and temperature.
        To refute this conjecture one needs only to look at e-cat’s “ash” and check the isotopic composition of the iron (Kullander& Essen found 11% of iron) in the sample, specifically look for Fe58 (0.28% in nature) abundance. I can find some discussion by the researchers where they talk about natural isotopic composition of the Ni and Cu, but I can’t find a word about isotopes of iron. Curious?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          The combined mass of He4 and Fe8 is almost 10 MeV larger than the mass of Ni62 nucleus so alpha decay of Ni62 is not exothermic. (If I looked up the masses correctly.)

          • Allan Kiik

            Pekka, is it not true that emitted alphas always carry substantial kinetic energy, about 3-10 MeV?
            How can collisions with lattice be endothermic?

          • Allan Kiik: Yes once they are emitted, but emission can only occur if the reaction is exothermic. If it’s endothermic, there cannot be alpha emission because it would need external energy to happen.

          • Allan Kiik

            Right, I understand it exactly the same way. I tried too to calculate energy deficit and it is around 6-7 MeV.
            But maybe, just maybe, there is something special about the structure of the Ni62 nucleus what allows some kind of “stimulated” emission?
            There is at least one theoretical paper about stimulated alpha emission, where alpha emitter is moving in BEC of helium.
            http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4628

  • Hampus

    Why do everyone that’s negative about LENR use Krivit? Even discovery.
    “Cold fusion, the idea of positively charged nuclei overcoming the Coulomb barrier at room temperature, to me, has no merit,” said Krivit.

    • Brian

      It seems like even citing Krivit, this is very selective quotation. Krivit is a pretty aggressive believer that energy can be generated from nickel-hydrogen systems. He just doesn’t believe that it’s through a mechanism of cold-fusion (Krivit’s weird grudges against Rossi and random other characters in the LENR world are a separate issue).

      • Bob

        You mention “Krivit’s weird grudges against Rossi”.
        I can understand where and why this originated.
        From the video of a few years back when Krivit went to see Rossi and his ecat working, it is pretty much certain that the ecat shown to him and said to be producing 5 kilowatts of energy, was doing nothing of the sort. He could only assume from this that he was being taken for a fool. Anyone would take offense at this and deal with it accordingly.
        Since that time there has been no demonstration which convincingly changes the view that it did not work.
        I might add that I also have not changed my opinion on these earlier versions.
        The recent tests are now on a different device and it does appear that from the evidence available so far, there is a much higher probablility that there is some validity to the claims.

        • fortyniner

          It seems a rather strange idea to me that Rossi faked the output from the ‘plumbing parts’ prototypes but went on to develop another related device (‘hot cat’) that does produce useful energy. The 1MW container unit looks like a bit of an overkill in terms of ‘prop design’ if the LT technology doesn’t actually work.

          However the prototypes do seem to have been unreliable and it is not impossible that AR faked a demo for Krivit on a ‘bad day’.

        • GreenWin

          Add to this Kirvit has a clear agenda supporting the Widom Larsen theory of CF, for which Kirvit appears to take credit in promoting. What is Kirvit’s payoff for this agenda? Why has he attacked so many decent scientists? His is the pathology of a wannabecop-gumshoe. Seeing fraud and ulterior motives in everyone around him, is classic paranoia.

          In the immortal words of Bill, Bob, “Physician, heal thyself.’

    • Kim

      This is just getting started

      Now that we have six signatures that
      verifies Rossi’s claims…

      Its Show down at OK Coral.

      The game is on.

      Its a good thing.

      When they start to discredit those
      six signatures it will really heat up!

      We only had Pons and Fleishman…
      Now we have Six More!

      Respect
      Kim

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Seven. By the way what does “show down at OK coral” mean?

        • Jimr

          Gunfight at the OK corral was a famous showdown between four cowboys and the Earp brothers (Wyatt,Virgil and Morgan) and one other marshall in 1881 in Tombstone Arizona.It only lasted about 30 seconds, 3 killed, 2 injured. The location was then named O K Corral .

          • fortyniner

            Showdown – slang (Am.); a fight to settle a dispute.

            Corral – a fenced enclosure for horses, in this case owned by a business named ‘OK’.

        • Charles

          Pekka, regarding Kim’s “Its Show down at OK Coral”. This had to do with a show called Down that was put on for the sailors by the USO at the OK Coral at Bikini Atoll just before the hydrogen bomb tests. It is frequently confused with the showdown at the O. K. Corral at Tombstone AR because the names are so alike.

          • fortyniner

            Pekka – ignore this supposed attempt at humour.

  • Felix Fervens

    Looks like there is only one comment on that Discovery site at present, written in rambling broken English. Maybe someone here with a FaceBook account might try commenting.

    I agree with Frank’s summary, the Discovery article is a straw man attack on a hot fusion device, which the E-Cat is not. This attack is the same used by the dysinfo trolls attacking Pons and Fleischmann.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Sad day for science when a major “science” media source like Discovery can make such a fool of itself. To the editors…..crawl into a corner, hide you face and look ashamed.

  • Roger

    This article is just stating the bl**ding obvious and just quoting classical physics.
    Since I read the report, I am coming out on the side of Rossi, in all honesty who would invite a group of professors to pour over the device for a number of days continuously, checking all the instrumentation, allowing unfettered access to the measurements. If I was Rossi and the whole thing was a scam I would only invite investors with little scientific knowledge and get their cheques and run off to the bank.
    LENR or cold fusion or whatever you want to call it is something that has not been observed and formulated/verified scientifically. Applying the current rules does not apply, this scenario reminds me of the first time high temperature semiconductors were discovered and there was secret compositions of copper oxides that worked or sometimes didn’t work depending upon adding impurities and the baking strategy. I still don’t believe even now that there are rules to the right way to make the best high temperature superconductor – its still pretty much trial and error.
    I can see no problem with fusion at low temperatures if the H2 is squeezed into a metal lattice and I see no problem with any gamma radiation being absorbed within the lattice. I am however not a physicist….

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Agreed (except for the gammas absorbed by the lattice but that’s a detail). Ironically, there is also no proper theory for high-temp superconductors yet. In that sense low-temp and high-temp SCs are an analogous pair to hot fusion/cold fusion except that the temperatures are reversed and the economic value of HTSCs, while not null, is apparently not sufficient to sustain strong emotions.

  • TJK

    Potential answers to the objections. All the objections are reasonable but there is too much validated fusion from D-Pd reactions.

    1. The Coulombe barrier — – Coulumbe barrier is not relevant if the reaction is creating non-energetic neutrons.

    2. Gamma Rays — if the neutrons are non-energetic than the gamma radiation would be similiar to background gamma and if the neutron is non-energetic and absorbed by other atoms its decay would be in the form of alpha and beta and the metal hydryde will be blocked by the thing chamber wall.

    3. Transmutation — this is a proveable issue that requires no conjecture. Simple mass-sprectrometer reading can prove or disprove this.

    4. Testing — valid but they did have access to the device. There’s a point where we have to trust those that gave the evaluation. They simply confirmed that the reaction/whatever it is/ is beyond chemical.

    5. Catalyst — why is that a red flag?

    • +1

      Is it possible to mail this to the author?

      • Invient

        Isn’t the columb barrier applicable only for strong force interactions… Since lenr is theorized to work by weak force, the columb barrier is not applicable.

  • bitcoinfinancedlenrderivates

    If I remember it right, during the initial promotion Rossi gave a sample of the residues of his reactor and it showed copper. Assuming Rossi is a fraud, he made up some Ni-Co powder mix with a view to deceive, and if not copper would evidence cold fusion.

    • sz

      No, Rossi and Focardi initially claimed that the main reaction was transmutation of Ni to Cu. However, if I remember correctly a sample of the powder after operation was given to Swedish scientists to analyze and although I don’t think they ever released the full analysis, my impression is that they did not find evidence for the transmutation of Ni to Cu. More recently, Rossi has stated that this is a minor part of the reaction and not the main source of the heat – which would explain the lack of evidence for his original claim. However, a good question is: what happened to the full powder analysis?

    • atanguy

      Yes,that was long time ago(relatively) but the analysis was not conclusive as the detected Cu had the same isotopic composition as the natural Cu or so, but the US navy lab has successfuly used LENR and patented it for transmutation.

  • Dave Lawton

    I find it so boring that these skeptical dipsticks keep attacking Andrea Rossi
    and banging on about the Coulomb barrier or other such scientific blurb ,they are
    a bunch of wannabe quantum engineers.The reality is they have never worked at the coalface in that world,I have. They need to get a life.

  • Sanjeev

    Looks like nothing has changed in the mainstream science reporting, same old dinosaur age reporting.

    Its a matter of common sense, that if someone is claiming something new, one should go and ask that person, why he is claiming that and honestly report it instead of cooking up a biased and dated opinion.

  • Chris I

    I only looked at the first page because I found it so full of the usual innaccurate statements. I can’t be bothered discussing them yet again.

    • Bruce Fast

      I am soooo with you on this.

    • zvidenyosef

      I agree this is just a tiresome rehash of the same flawed arguments, used by the original MIT researchers to ruin Pons & Fleischmann and bury the anomalous heat effect, depriving the world of its benefits for 25 years.

  • Alex

    Why is Discovery citing Krivit, he has no scientific background at all. Didn’t he used to be an IT System Administrator. He would not understand a lot of the current standard model let alone an entire new form of energy that is not explained by what we know so far? Is Discovery not interested to see what real scientists have to say and especially the ones, in just as recent news, that have written many reports about LENR where successful replications took place. It’s a total BS article. I’m canceling my Discovery subscription.

    • GreenWin

      2012 fiscal year Discovery President and Chief Executive Officer David M. Zaslav made $49,932,867 in total compensation. That’s $50 million salary, equity and bonuses for one year’s work. Hmmmm.

      Is it a wonder that this huge conglomerate DCI, Discovery Communications Inc., would want to quash any chance of a new, heretical science upsetting the gravy train?? Seriously, a $50M annual salary will buy an awful lot of disinformation.

      The good news is commercial interests are BIGGER than DCI. Behemoths like U.S. Navy, General Electric, Siemens AG, Mitsubishi Heavy, Doosan Heavy, Samsung, Toyota etc. see a huge revenue prospect in LENR. Hardware vs software?? Popcorn anyone??

    • zvidenyosef

      It is difficult to understand how Krivit has managed to portray himself as an expert on the most promising development of our time. He has abused this unwarranted attention, by lying about honest hard working Scientists. He lacks the scientific background or qualifications and has no credibility. Yet he is faithfully quoted by all the main stream media publications as if he were a college professor. This just proves the unreliability of main stream publications. He is clearly out of his league, and is pursuing a personal vendetta.

  • Barry

    That article is a load of crap. First off there is an advertisement for nuclear fission right at the top. Then Krivit (of all people) states LENR is real but Cold Fusion isn’t. HUH? He has proved his density on this one.

    • Gerrit

      The average facebook post makes more sense than this article.

      Hey, on my way home there is a wall with some terrible obscene graffiti, but that still beats this article in journalistic quality.

  • Kimball

    Sorry if this is a bit off topic,
    But why is no one doing this?

    Sign the petition if you agree: http://wh.gov/SyJC

    Stand up and be counted,
    Number 32, and proud of it!

    peace

    • Jim

      done, thanks for the prompt

    • Leo Kaas

      I’m 35!

      • GreenWin

        Leo, ya got your whole life ahead of you!

    • Ryan

      Already did, was #6

  • Jimr

    Has Rossi ever stated that his devise definitely operates with cold fusion as opposed to LENR? Do we know LENR does not cause transmutaions?

    • Kim

      I don’t think anybody knows whats causing
      the anomalous heat.

      I do know that heat is caused by friction.

      Rub your hands together.

      Nickel and Hydrogen are rubbing together
      and causing friction (heat)

      I don’t think its Nuclear Fusion at all.

      So until we can figure out the causative
      reason for the heat… People need to chill
      on this issue.

      Rossi never likeded the term cold fusion or
      LENR for that matter.

      Respect
      Kim

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The distinction is only semantic, both refer to the same (unknown) thing. A beloved child has many names. If there is any difference, it is that LENR is a very general and neutral term, referring to any types of nuclear reactions or processes occurring at “low” temperature between normally stable nuclei. (But having said that, it might still be so that to the extent that LENR is exothermic, it must also be “fusion” in some sense.)

      • Jimr

        Can you point me to any authoritative document that states they are one and the same. I know the terms are used interchangebly but i thought the media, etc started that. If Krivet says he believes LENR is legit but it is not cold fusion, it makes me wonder.

        • Jimr

          The reason. I ask about this if there is a difference many, may be simply arguing over terminalogy . All these non believers may come back later and say, ” see it was not cold fusion but was LENR”.

      • Kim

        I’m waiting for the Third Party
        Spectrometer of showing definitive
        transmutation of nickel to copper.

        Respect
        Kim

    • AB

      The term LENR comes from the Widom-Larsen theory. Rossi doesn’t believe in it (link). I think this explains Krivit’s dislike for Rossi at least in part.

      • AB

        Disclaimer: at least I believe LENR comes from W-L because its proponents promote the term a lot.

      • GreenWin

        LENR seems to date far back before WL when researchers needed another name for CF to get papers even considered. Kirvit appears in the employ of some shadowy operation bent on destroying Rossi and his discovery and bringing all LENR science under the umbrella of WL theory. Since this is the foundation for NAVY and NASA patent apps – one might think Kirvit works for those entities.

        • GreenWin

          IF these ops can make a legal argument that LENR is not fusion – there may be less prosecutions of those who knowingly impeded its development.

          That’s technically unlikely as certain CF experiments, Pd/D (notably De Ninno ENEA) show He4 evidence which is accepted proof of fusion.

    • Bob Greenyer

      LENR absolutely can cause transmutations, look at the D + Palladium, plus non naturally occurring proportion metal isotopic transmutations in the Mitsubishi and Toyota replications.

      http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/12/06/mitsubishi-reports-toyota-replication/

  • Pedro

    Discovery and similar publications quite often publish results from all kind of research that is being done. The items they usually pick out are the ones that are out of the ordinairy and might even point to the need to re-think our existing “knowledge”. It’s their bread and butter to publsih exiting new discoveries and be positive about what it might mean for science. But STOP… this is about “cold fusion” and all of a sudden, the treatment is entirely negative… no exitement about possible new science… weird behaviour. Didn’t see them bash other scientists in a similar way for a long time. May be even not since 1989 😉

    • GreenWin

      This is what FEAR of truth can do to people who have long avoided it.

    • Andrew Ma

      Excellent point you brought up. After reading it I commented on Discovery.

  • GreenWin

    Hello Friends of AR. I think it helpful to take a step back from the five limp complaints here, and follow the money.

    Let’s start with Discovery Communications Inc. (aka DCI) a $4.2 billion annual conglomerate of publications, cable and online entertainment channels and networks including TLC, The Military Channel, Animal Planet, OWN, Science, and divisions Discovery Networks U.S., Discovery Networks International, Discovery Commerce, and Discovery Education. Discovery also owns Petfinder.com, TreeHugger.com and HowStuffWorks.com; they distribute BBC America, BBC World News.

    For 2012 fiscal year Discovery President and Chief Executive Officer David M. Zaslav made $49,932,867 in total compensation. That’s $50 million salary, equity and bonuses for one year’s work. Hmmmm. http://bit.ly/13fH5Bt

    DCI’s largest stockholder (31%) is Advance Publications Inc. owned by the descendants of S.I. Newhouse Sr., Donald Newhouse and S.I. Newhouse, Jr.. They own a vast empire of newspapers, magazines, (Glamor, Vogue, Vanity Fair, New Yorker, etc) and blog including curiously Reddit-the LENR pathosceps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications

    Is it a wonder that this huge conglomerate DCI would want to quash any chance of a new, heretical science upsetting the gravy train Newhouse and Zaslav have built for themselves?? Seriously, a $50M annual salary will buy an awful lot of disinformation.

    The good news is commercial interests are BIGGER than DCI. Behemoths like U.S. Navy, General Electric, Siemens AG, Mitsubishi Heavy, Doosan Heavy, Toyota etc. see a huge revenue prospect in LENR. Hardware vs software?? Popcorn anyone??

    • Leo Kaas

      Greenwin, thanks for finding the behind scenes information on Discovery. The article seemed like a hatchet job.

      • psi

        Yes, excellent money trail analysis, Greenwin.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      GreenWin…thanks for that research.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin interesting link below, they just cannot bring themselves to voice the most obvious answer.
      https://www.simonsfoundation.org/features/science-news/is-nature-unnatural/

      • GreenWin

        I still don’t buy the Higgs hype. But yes, the multiverse concept seems plausible and makes the string guys happy. Hey, if offbeat theories make people happy, I’m glad for them. We here in the LENR universe have got an epic drama going.

        How often can you watch six billion impoverished people discover an abundant, benevolent universe?? It is the stuff of divine comedy!!

        • georgehants

          Discovering it is one thing, getting it to the people quite another.
          Funny old World.

    • Tappanjack

      And a cold beer?

      • GreenWin

        Absolutely Tap. A cold Swans would be great!

  • Robyn Wyrick

    “Cold fusion has no merit,” said Steven B. Krivit
, random, non-credentialed blogger.

    If you like this, try:

    “The Internet will change nothing,” said William Shankme, window washer.

    “Capturing electricity is impossible,” said Dagmar Philks, cobbler.

    Or, if you would like, use me: “Cold fusion is 100% real,” said Robyn Wyrick, uneducated computer programmer and business owner.

    Do I know the science? No. Does Krivit? No. Is LENR or Cold Fusion accounted for in the Standard Model? I don’t know, and neither does Krivit, but I have read that is isn’t.

    But here’s some fun: neither is gravity.

    http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model

    “However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, gravity, is not part of the Standard Model.”

    But, fortunately for us, gravity has no effect on physics.

    • Timar

      That made my day 🙂

      Although, to yours and Krivits vindication, more qualified people did not always fare better:

      “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” – Albert Einstein, 1932

      “The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.” – Ernst Rutherford, 1933

      Which reminds us of Arthur C. Clarces First Law…

  • Bertuswonkel

    The author of the article clearly has not done his homework. LENR cannot be debunked on the basis theoretical arguments, only experiments count.
    I gave up on Discovery a long long time ago. I started sending hate mail to them when they forced youtube to remove this video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch? =rOaQzwd6R30&list=SP73E5E40315EA40FE&index=8
    Apparently the original video showed 30 secs of footage from a Discovery channel episode on something. It is such a nice video, who dare you call yourself Discovery channel when you force people to remove such nice video’s! They only care about money, educating the public is not on their agenda.

    • Bertuswonkel
    • GreenWin

      Since you have posted a link to Carl Sagan, let’s take a look at what Carl had to say about press coverage of P&F cold fusion back in November 1989:

      “After Nature magazine and the DOE panel had rendered their negative verdicts in the summer of 1989, precious little was heard of cold fusion. Many science journalists simply bought into the Nature-DOE panel line and gave up. And why not? So thick had been the disparagement of Fleischmann and Pons and all their followers, that the mud stuck. It became “socially unacceptable” in the science journalism community to give too much weight to any of the cold fusion rumblings that continued to be heard.”

      http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1314/sagan.html

      • zvidenyosef

        Thanks for the link. I have enormous respect for Carl Sagan. The last quote was a little disappointing, however based on the prevailing opinion at that time it is understandable. In his defense he still left the door open to the possibility that the Pons & Fleeischmann effect is real.
        I think this shows the pernicous effect of the repetitive negative statements from skeptics who studiously avoid any positive evidence, and control the main stream media.

  • Pedro

    Rossi’s outrage about Wikipedia has had effect… his entry has been ammended.
    In his blog on JoNP, Rossi responded as follows:

    There are many imprecisions and errors but at least there are not false accusations. I will try to fix this decisively improved version, if this will be permitted. At least now we are on a plane of reciprocal honesty, even if the Seebeck Effect numbers have been very different, since the problem was they had low efficiency, not low power, modules of 2 W can be put in series and parallels to get any power, a link to the Report of the Third Indipendent Party regarding the E-Cat should be put, a link to http://www.ingandrearossi to understand what really happened in my past should also be put. Let me say that now the page does not make false accusations, but appears to be very much biased, sort of ” Jesus Christ did walk on the water, because at the age of 33 still was not able to swim”…but it is true that now, at least, you are not at the level sort of ” Jesus Christ has been crucified because robbed a caravan of Rabbis”. Thanks to this mode-variation, possibly, from now, we can talk friendly.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • psi

      Wikipedia is rotten but not immune to correction under the proper circumstances. I’m glad to see Ing. Rossi finally kicking some reason into them.

    • GreenWin

      JC robbing a caravan of Rabbis! Great sense of humor.

  • psi

    It would appear *Discovery* has been roundly thumped, and deservedly so, by we band of brothers and sisters.

  • georgehants

    Could I ask what the scientists on page think of the trust and respectability of Science being dragged through the mud by the abuse, bias and distortion shown to Cold Fusion and many other subjects by their establishment, journals and Wiki-rubbish.

  • roseland67

    From MSNBC this am:

    “One of America’s corporate giants, (General Electric), is investing billions of dollars in the new boom of oil and gas drilling”.

    Why would one of the worlds largest companies be investing in hydrocarbon energy development IF LENR is the reality it is claimed?

    Thoughful responses only please.

    • Glenn

      Because oil and gas are not going away any time soon.
      They will always have an important role to play in the overall energy mix, even with LENR.
      Oil and gas have other industrial uses besides energy production, too.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      They realize it is going to be a slow transition into LENR, 5-25 years. So why not invest in the cleanest, cheapest fossil fuel?

    • mcloki

      Simplest answer. Still money to be made. Lots of it. Even if LENR is Commercial. Your North American Car fleet has a life expectancy of about 12.5 years. People aren’t going to throw out perfectly good gas cars to upgrade. And retrofiting homes for LENR heating as opposed to gas, oil, electrical will take years. Aviation fuel will be king till new airplanes are built. Lots of money to be made on the winddown of a business.

      • Barry

        Good point mcloki, even if CF cars came out tomorrow, gas powered cars will be around for a long time.

    • John Di Turo

      Because the Oil and gas cartels have trillions of dollars already invested in their elaborate infrastructure that has taken them 100 years to develop. They will defend that investment to the death and squash anyone or anything that gets in their way. The LENR technologies have been suppressed for the past 30 years, and now they can no longer be contained. It going to be an interesting battle and again unfortunately for the Oil and Gas companies , they will be displaced by the companies that have the foresight to abandon obsolete technology.

    • GreenWin

      GE has announced it is investing in environmental controls for fracking. This positions them as a “green knight” and expands their interest in natural gas. Fracking requires millions of gallons of HOT WATER. In far flung fields where no energy is available. That’s why the Mysse brothers invented their “Hot Frackin’ Water” truck: http://bit.ly/1315go4

      “In 30 hours, [Mysse’s] firebox guzzles 1,200 gallons of diesel to heat one million gallons of water.”

      So, let’s see: $5,000/day diesel to heat 1M gal water vs. LENR COP >6 NG fired E-Cat HT2-3, 200 GGE (gallon gas/diesel equiv) x $2.15 (equiv CNG, Compressed Nat Gas) = $430.00/day.

      Remote location heat for fracking sounds like a perfect match for LENR and General Electric petro operations. Guys at GE look sorta smart.

      • roseland67

        So,
        Money, money, money, money…..MONEY.
        Makes sense, Greenwin,
        Talk about a perfect application for Ecat,
        big F@#$%^&*ing water heater for gas fracking.

        If it rolls out like that, you’re correct, GE will
        look very smart, forward thinking, kinda sustainable,
        only good pub.

        Thanks

    • fortyniner

      Extracting shale oil and many other difficult oil/gas resources is energy intensive and thus expensive. In effect a significant quantity of the product is consumed during extraction. A low-level heat source such as the LT 1MW units could reduce such costs by a large amount, and could therefore bring new profitability to such resource extraction.

      As others have pointed out, oil in particular will be needed for quite some time, particularly as LENR vehicle propulsion is unlikely to be permitted in the foreseeable future.

  • Robert

    This report of “fact” coming from the company that produced and
    ran the T.V. “documentary” called

    ‘Mermaids: The Body Found”

    Now there is a really scientific, fact based piece of journalistic integrity!
    I am sure they applied the same rigor to the article on the ECat! 🙂

    That was just about the most stupid show I ever started to watch! After a few minutes of viewing it became so bogus and unbelievable I was tempted to watch “Lost in Space”! They were both about the same level of credibility.

    • Petter E

      Peter Ekström recognizes errors

      Hej kirneH!

      Det är utmärkt att du hjälper oss med dina kunskaper om IR-kameror. Som jag säger i rapporten är jag ingen expert (det är nog inte författarna heller), och den sektionen var tänkt som ett ifrågasättande, inte att det absolut var fel. I så fall vore diskussionen över, eller hur. Hade det beskrivits pedagogiskt och bra i rapporten, så hade jag kanske förstått. Men nu kan du kanske reda ute det för oss.

      Om man antar man har en grå-strålare (lite mindre restriktivt antagande än en svartkropp), skulle man kunna bestämma temperaturen genom att anpassa Planck-kurvan och hitta maximum (Wiens förskjutningslag). Utan annat antagande om emissiviteten än att den inte beror av våglängden. Men detta används tydligen inte?

      Jag förstår vad du säger att om man petar in en emissivitet lägre än 1, så får man högre temperatur på mätaren. Enligt Planck blir då strålade effekten högre. Men man måste multiplicera denna med emissiviteten. Är man då tillbaka till rätt värde på effekten?

      Min slutsats var att jag tycker inte IR-kamera mätningarna är bästa metoden, och jag hade föredragit vattenflöde/temperaturer. Detta håller du tydligen med om även om du konstruerat IR-kameror (eller kanske just därför). Problemet är egentligen detsamma som när Rossi kokade vatten och vi diskuterade hur mycket ånga han hade. Det är hela tiden så luddigt när Rossi är inblandad.

      En fråga till sist:
      Kan man verkligen bara sätta på en IR-kamera och få rätt temperatur? Utan någon kalibrering?

      Tack igen för att du tog tid att undervisa oss!

      Med vänliga hälsningar

      Peter

  • georgehants

    Not off topic I hope, just showing how little is understood by science about things that could lead to new knowledge like Cold Fusion etc.
    ——-
    From Wired
    Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don’t Exist at the Same Time
    Now they’re just messing with us. Physicists have long known that quantum mechanics allows for a subtle connection between quantum particles called entanglement, in which measuring one particle can instantly set the otherwise uncertain condition, or “state,” of another particle—even if it’s light years away. Now, experimenters in Israel have shown that they can entangle two photons that don’t even exist at the same time.
    “It’s really cool,” says Jeremy O’Brien, an experimenter at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the work. Such time-separated entanglement is predicted by standard quantum theory, O’Brien says, “but it’s certainly not widely appreciated, and I don’t know if it’s been clearly articulated before.”
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/quantum-linked-photons/

  • julius

    The title of the article start biased.

    “5 Reasons Cold Fusion is Bunk”

    If the one who wrotes this had a true scientific mindset, he would have titled his article :

    “5 Reasons Cold Fusion could be Bunked”.

  • julius

    This kind of biaised attacks always reinforce my trust in cold fusion.

    I can feel the system being stressed by cold fusion, biaised articles, amazing reactive censorship wikipedia, diffamation, Ad nominem attacks, etc…

    I think, at a certain point, you don’t need knowledge in physic or cold fusion to state if the Technology is true or not, you don’t even need a proof that it works, you can only analyse how they get attacked, by who and how, this gives a clear answer to me.

  • Deleo77

    What is going on with Rossi and the demonstration is reminiscent of the story of D-Wave quantum computers. Their demo was sketchy, the person who started it had somewhat of a checkered past, and established scientists in the field of quantum computers thought their demonstration was flawed, or maybe even a hoax. Scientists from leading universities wanted to replicate the experiment, because that is what scientists like to do. But D-Wave said no because they are a private company that wants to maintain their trade secrets.

    But D-Wave has held successful demonstrations, and to this day not many people know or even understand how it works. This may actually include people at D-Wave as well. What they have begun to establish is that the computer exhibits quantum effects. Many of the long-time skeptics have slowly come around to admit this. So is D-Wave a quantum computer, maybe or maybe not, but the important thing is that it has the effects of one.

    Rossi’s device may fall into the same category. Is it cold fusion, LENR, something else? He may not even know. The important thing is the effect of what it does. If Rossi’s device is the real deal, it may follow the same path as D-Wave. Now D-Wave has the CIA and Jeff Bezos as investors, and has raised millions, and Lockheed, Google and NASA have purchased a D-Wave computer to do quantum computing research. If you see the post below, there are some similarities to the e-cat demonstration. History does have a way of repeating itself.

    http://www.mactalk.com.au/23/22460-quantum-computer-demonstrated.html

  • andreiko

    Koude fusie? De vrijkomende energie bij (2) H atomen die fuseren is onder alle omstandigheden altijd van de zelfde waarde. Waar het omgaat is de hoeveelheid atomen die fuseren binnen een bepaalde tijd en de afstand die ze tegenover andere exotherme reacties (fusie/chemisch)
    hebben.Het voorgaande bepaald wat wij zullen meten aan energie binnen een bepaalde tijdsfactor.De H atomen die kennelijk in een Ni rooster ingekneld raken worden blootgesteld aan enorme rek en krimp krachten van het nikkel als ook de bewegings energie van fibrerende nikkel atomen
    Misschien kan het voorgaande een beter inzicht geven in de vrijkomende energie van nieuwe configuraties der atomen.Sorry DUTCH.

  • V

    Right, check this guy out.The author of the Discovery article is nothing much but a blogger and a former hedge fund reporter which at some point has build a science section for a website? Really, is this al his experice about science? There are way much more people that could do his job…clearly he knows nothing about physics. Judge for yourself!

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jesse-emspak/5/20a/387

  • B travers

    These attacks will surely become more aggressive as the full impact of AR’s achievment begin to sink in.
    We all have to continue to give our support to AR, unless you have any doubts.
    I don’t have any, and these attacks help reinforce my belief.

    Regards, Bren.

  • Andrea

    Clap Clap Clap. Great journalism in this story. Jesse received a call from his boss: «hei, what do we think about Rossi?» «zzz zzz oh yes, I’ll send you the story in 5 minutes». Come on Discovery… You can do it better

  • hempenearth

    Wow! Discover believes an unqualified blogger with a vested interest instead of several highly qualified eye witnesses paid by an energy industry body to produce an independent report. What balance!

    • Miles

      I think going forward, we will see more aggression of the non-believers attacking Rossi.

      They can Deny all they Want, LENR Is Real !!!

      • AlainCo

        Like a condemned in the death row, having his las meal… always moaning on a problem with the meal… just to get few minutes before the cooking.

        hard to swallow the crow.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    This is the same sort of thing Gary Taubes did to John Bockris when he found tritium in his F&P replication experiments in 1989.

    http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/MalloveIE32.pdf

    • Joe Shea

      You say, “Rossi has a technology that works as he says,” but he doesn’t have ity anymore. He’s sold it. Since we don’t know who his “Partner” – always capitalized! – is, he may have sold it to another corporate version of himself – in a NDA deal, of course.

  • Tomw

    Wait a minute, read the last paragraph. After casting 5 points of doubt, the author says ” my own personal opinion is that Rossi has a technology that works as he says..” Sounds like he’s hedging his position.

    I think his key statement is that we don’t understand what is happening in the reaction. I don’t think anyone, including Rossi, fully understands the physics at work here. Which is why comparing it to the power of the stars is totally misguided.

    Scientists are surprisingly closed minded about new ideas, perhaps because they are so committed to the rigid thinking required by the scientific method. This is normally a good discipline to have until you’re dealing with radically different concepts and technologies. Open your minds!

  • Allan Shura

    The arguments presented by discovery and others are what is called a conceptual error.

    Most of the points are based on the theories of hot fusion not cold
    fusion and they are entirely different phenomenon.

    The fallacy is apparent if we for example compare heat from a fire (called thermal radiation) and for example another phenomenon like x-ray radiation and claim they are the same as a “proof”.

  • elasticbucket

    I would consider the following:
    No.1 is speculative, inasmuch as LENR process has not been identified.
    No.2 Is an assumption there is a fissionable component to LENR.
    No.3 Why, would there need to be new elements coming out of the machine if cold fusion was occurring?
    No.4 The team did not test for a hidden DC wire, untrue.
    No.5 A surreptitious ruse to find out the nature of the fuel cell.

  • elasticbucket

    I would consider the following:
    No.1 is speculative, inasmuch as LENR process has not been identified.
    No.2 Is an assumption there is fissionable a component to LENR.
    No.3 Why, would there need to be new elements coming out of the machine if cold fusion was occurring?
    No.4 The team did not test for a hidden DC wire, untrue.
    No.5 A surreptitious ruse to find out the nature of the fuel cell.
    and, have 2 bob each way. A very weak journalistic performance in my opinion.