Cold Fusion in Academic Journals — An Editor's Perspective

I would like to thank ECW reader Kat Jones for entering into the discussion here and providing some perspective from the point of view of someone on the editorial board of two academic journals. I thought the following comment deserved its own post because we often discuss here the response of the academic community, and academic publishing world to cold fusion. The post below was in response to georgehants, who asked about whether Kat had published any articles on cold fusion, telepathy or the placebo effect — and what he/she thinks abut how science has handled cold fusion for the last 24 years.

“I have published zero papers on Cold Fusion, the Placebo Effect, and Telepathy. I am not an expert in these fields. I was responding to Sanjeev’s comment about journals publishing crap papers and the general meme on this site that journals conspire somehow to suppress papers on topics that have been deemed unacceptable by some murky clan of puppet masters that rule all of science.

“But since you asked, most journals have a clear mission statement that guides the editors and the reviewers as to what types of papers the journal wishes to publish. This is because they wish to become THE journal in a particular topic and hence have a good reputation and a long subscriber list. One of the journals I edit for now had previously rejected two of my submitted articles. Whoever the reviewers were at that time decided my submissions were not appropriate for that journal, and I think they were right. I ended up publishing them somewhere else eventually because it was not the quality of the papers that were objectionable, but the topic.

“So Georgehants, I urge you to start your own journal (you seem to have a lot of time on your hands). I think the “International Journal on Validations of Telepathy” would serve to fill a void that currently exists in academic journals. As chief editor, you will begin to receive far more paper submissions than you want to publish and will have to make some difficult choices to insure only the best work appears in your journal. You will also get articles submitted that are not on Telepathy, but instead reincarnation, quantum chemistry, mating habits of the shrew, and whether Bigfoot is racist. You will obviously reject these submissions because your journal is about Telepathy and not Bigfoot or quantum chemistry. At that point we can all accuse you of reckless and arrogant dismissal of topics you know nothing about.

“Back to seriousness. There are two main reasons why articles get rejected by journals: topic and quality. It is important to understand the difference.

“Another thing to remember is that science journals at their core are about explaining things, not about building things or preserving observations for posterity. If anybody ever writes a convincing article explaining why F & P’s original experiment had excess energy but is so enormously difficult to replicate, then it would surely be published in top journals. On the other hand, if I light up Times Square for a week using a secret black box that nobody can inspect, it isn’t going to get me published in the Journal of Computational Chemistry. I would have to settle for E-Cat World. But that is still something!”

I sincerely appreciate Kat sharing this perspective — it helps me understand better the way that academic journals approach the topic of publishing, and how they see their role. The last paragraph is particularly interesting, and I think hits a key point and raises an important question about science and scientific publishing. If a black box test clearly shows some extraordinary effect going on — should the scientific community pay attention?

I appreciate Kat posting here, even though it may run counter to the point of view of some readers here. Please be respectful in your comments.


  • Buck

    Frank, I think you have done a great service for sharing Kat Jone’s perspective.

    Just as presented by Kat, our discussion of practical realities is far superior to a ‘black box’ description of conspiracies surrounding CF. CF has had the short end of the stick for the last 25 years, but I prefer Kat’s perspective to a simplistic emotionally energetic paranoid ‘analysis’.

  • Christina

    So if a company’s manufacturing a lenr item, selling it, making money on it, then helping the third world become a part of the first world, why would this company want to publish in a scientific magazine? Aren’t the scientific magazines there for publishing before manufacturing so the scientific community can endorse one’s product and make it easier to go to the manufacturing step?

    Perhaps the paradigm is changing. Are too many inventions being created too fast for the editors of scientific magazines to keep up?

    • Roger Bird

      Christina, It may be that too many inventions are being created too fast for editors of scientific magazines to keep up. That may be part of it. But Scientific American couldn’t keep up with the Wright Bros., in 1908, and life was pretty slow back in those days: http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html Science itself does not keep up very well when there is a paradigm shift, and LENR is the paradigm shift to end all paradigm shifts, despite what friendlyprogrammer says. There are 4 known physical forces in the Universe: gravitation, the electro-magnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. As far as we know, the first 3 are the only ones we have used, as far as we know. For the first time EVER, we are using the weak nuclear force (we think) in LENR. But in any case, this is a big paradigm shift, and science is not equiped to deal with it any more than the elders of the Catholic Church could keep up with Columbus. The thinkers and the elders in 1492 had the CORRECT theory, but they were ever so wrong. The elders thought that the world was 24,000 miles in circumference [not that the world was flat] and Columbus thought that it was 17,000 miles in circumference. Columbus was WRONG, in theory. LENR doesn’t even have a theory, yet, as far as we know.

      Add to that the massive amount of government money in scientific research and the cadre of nuclear physicists who are worshipped by politicians, the general public, and the news media, and you have a perfect prescription for close mindedness to ANY paradigm shifting.

      • Christina

        Yes, but that’s the why the scientific research-and-publish system has also got to have a paradigm shift: because if it can’t keep up with a flash-flood change, what good is it? Right?

        Buck, I don’t understand the science and wish I did, but I just didn’t get math when I was a kid. I thought about going into science for about ten minutes, but I knew it would take more energy than I had to persevere in it. I wasn’t lazy; I was just so tired if felt like I was carrying two g’s. I thought it normal. I beg parents not to call their child lazy if (s)he doesn’t have any energy. Talk to the child. Find out how (s)he’s really feeling. I spent three times the effort of everyone else to get done one third of the work of everyone else. It’s a thyroid problem.

        I’m just saying I want parents to be detectives before they accuse their offspring of laziness.

        But I’m also saying that in a non-mathematical way, I understand the science behind LENR and the things you explained. The system should be changed because it looks like we might have a decade or two of rash new things be discovered.

        Frank, I am running at the mouth, but I really want people to understand when children don’t move, there is a reason.

        Everyone have a great day and may God bless you all and all the people working to bring us LENR.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          You make a good point, Christina. I agree that the scientific review and publish system cannot keep up with the accelerated science developments and papers. Also a concern is that the amount of publications and data is so vast, lot’s of it gets lost or deleted after 10 or so years. There simply isn’t the money or the system to archive that much research.

          But guest makes a particular point “There are 4 known physical forces in the Universe: gravitation, the electro-magnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force.”

          The fact that we can make use of the weak force for the first time in mankind is probably the biggest paradigm shift of the last 100 years. That’s how big this could be. And science just ignores this. Galileo posted the theory that the earth revolves around the sun and got killed for it by the establishment at that time. That was in the 16th century. Now we have evidence that the weak nuclear force can be used and it can have an even bigger impact than Galileo’s discovery and again the scientific establishment tries to kill it. Strange how little some thing have changed in 5 centuries.

    • Donk970

      You’re absolutely right on the why bother publish if you have a commercial partner to take your product to manufacturing. But.. the scientific journals are there to disseminate scientific theory and supporting experimental proof. They have nothing to do with endorsing anything. It certainly helps a researchers credibility to be published but it’s not an absolute necessity. At the end of the day if someone like Rossi manages to get an audience with a big VC outfit like IH and can present a really convincing demonstration of the technology, credentials don’t really matter. You could be a housewife from Pokipsy for all the VC guys care.

  • Daniel Maris

    The point is, you don’t have to be a conspiracist to believe in the mighty power of influence.

    Clearly the APS have played a key role in deterring cold fusion research – declaring it in effect anathema. The notion as mentioned by Hagelstein that “involvement in cold fusion can equal career death” was not greeted with disbelieving guffaws in the audience at MIT but appreciative laughter. We know that officials at the US Patent Office and some other offices are under instructions to reject all cold fusion patents.

    All these factors play into the decisions of editors (themselves liable to career death) not to consider cold fusion articles or to ensure they are peer reviewed hostiley.

    • Donk970

      I sometimes wonder if the field of cold fusion would have survived a more hospitable environment. The fact that after F&P all cold fusion work had to be done on the qt meant that the researchers had to be very dedicated and very persistent and very creative. If there had been a lot of money available to do the research out in the open would anyone have looked beyond Palladium? As it stands everyone is looking at Nickel instead because it’s far cheaper and vastly more plentiful. My other thought is that Cold Fusion is going to force it’s way into the world no matter what the current religious orthodoxy in science says. When Cold Fusion is finally out in the open and undeniable it will not only have vast far reaching impacts on society but will also have huge repercussions in the scientific community. The questions will naturally come up about why we’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars to get one unverified not really over unity hot fusion experiment in fifty years when a bunch of guys with no funding at all got a working fusion power plant going in thirty.

    • Frechette

      That’s one reason why many workers in the CF field are past retirement. They are done with a career, put the kids through college, and paid off the mortgage. Now they want to work on some really exciting stuff like Cold Fusion.

  • Freethinker

    Well…

    As much as there is a lot of truth in what Kat Jones writes, it does not remove the fact that Cold Fusion has been suppressed by science and that journals of science has been playing along nicely.

    Geogehants is being shamelessly ridiculed for his stance on fringe matters, but it is no joking matter that cold fusion has been treated as “reincarnation” or “Is Bigfoot a racist” science. It is a major disgrace and a large black stain on science.

    It is not like scientific journals are like the “free press” – today all but extinct.

    But an editor with some balls would still take in controversial material, especially if it does come from established scientists, but there have been very few such individuals in the science journal market.

  • Freethinker

    Well…

    As much as there is a lot of truth in what Kat Jones writes, it does not remove the fact that Cold Fusion has been suppressed by science and that journals of science has been playing along nicely.

    Geogehants is being shamelessly ridiculed for his stance on fringe matters, but it is no joking matter that cold fusion has been treated as “reincarnation” or “Is Bigfoot a racist” science. It is a major disgrace and a large black stain on science.

    It is not like scientific journals are like the “free press” – today all but extinct.

    But an editor with some balls would still take in controversial material, especially if it does come from established scientists, but there have been very few such individuals in the science journal market.

  • Curbina

    I also thank Kat by the point of view. I’ve had troubles with my attempts of publication of nothing out of the ordinary field of water treatment for specific inorganic contaminants, but never with the editors, just with the peer reviewers, and always because my work is transdisciplinary so I have to talk languajes of different disciplines (in my case, chemical engineering and agricultural engineering with crop science) and some specialists simply won’t get it at the first try, or even at the second try. I wonder how this affects LENR researchers, but I know that they have taken the route of creating their own publications wich in turn did not resulted in greater recognition, but mostly greater scorn, even with the peer review of rigorously scientifical and technically correct papers. So, the thing is that we are here all waiting to see LENR published in Nature or Science, and that won’t happen in the short term. Regards.

  • GreenWin

    Apparently Mr/Ms Kat feels threatened by George’s broad dismissals of mainstream journals. The facts indicate quite a number of journals published on CF (1989-1992) until the American Physical Society got panties bunched and declared Pons & Fleishmann “pseudoscientists.” The reason academic physics journals are headed for an embarrassing dollop of egg-on-face, can be found in the infamous story of Italian ENEA’s DeNino et al study on He4 in Cold Fusion experiments. Widely known now as “Report 41.”

    What makes this tale so compelling is the DeNino study was ordered (and designed in part) by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubia – then President of ENEA. DeNino and Italy’s government RAI News make clear the study done 2001-2002 confirmed He4 products from CF cells. This in current understanding indicates fusion. But once the study was complete, Dr Rubbia mysteriously disappeared. And when DeNino and ENEA scientists submitted the paper to prominent and less prominent journals – 41 rejected the paper.

    The story gets even more absurd when the ENEA team relates the reasons for rejection given by journal editors. One editor claimed it impossible to produce a hot plasma in liquid! DeNino and fellow scientists have a good laugh at this. One might say this episode was… katastrophic for physics journals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bujrxqwRwc0

  • Roger Bird

    Kat, you are a breath of fresh air. I have been fighting with the conspiritorialists here for years, literally.

    Frank, who is to say that e-catworld.com won’t become the official publication of cold fusion instead of Nature or Science. We the cold fusion sites have been sitting around whining about conspiracies and the meanie heads who control the world Why not just take over the world with cold fusion publishing? It will almost certainly happen anyway. As cold fusion garners more acceptance, http://www.ecatworld.com and other sites will begin to garner more authority and credibility. When serious thinkers and scientists want to know something about cold fusion, they won’t go to Nature or Science, they will go to ecatworld.com.

    • georgehants

      Roger, and those that have died and suffered possibly for many years while Cold Fusion is debunked and denied by scientific journals etc?
      A specific reply please!

  • Roger Bird

    Kat, you are a breath of fresh air. I have been fighting with the conspiritorialists here for years, literally.

    Frank, who is to say that e-catworld.com won’t become the official publication of cold fusion instead of Nature or Science. We the cold fusion sites have been sitting around whining about conspiracies and the meanie heads who control the world Why not just take over the world with cold fusion publishing? It will almost certainly happen anyway. As cold fusion garners more acceptance, http://www.ecatworld.com and other sites will begin to garner more authority and credibility. When serious thinkers and scientists want to know something about cold fusion, they won’t go to Nature or Science, they will go to ecatworld.com.

    • georgehants

      Roger, and those that have died and suffered possibly for many years while Cold Fusion is debunked and denied by scientific journals etc?
      A specific reply please!

      • Roger Bird

        You are railing against the way that the world is. If you would but accept it (1) you would be happier; (2) you could do more about changing it; (3) you would understand it better. There was no conspiracy in 1908 when Scientific American got it so completely and maliciously wrong, and talk about a demonstration! There was no need for expensive, complicated, and controversy inducing measurement of energy when an aeroplane is flying around over-head. But where was the conspiracy? There was none. There was only human nature and perspectives bent by vested interests, just exactly like today.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          You have a point regarding human nature and the ordinary audience.

          However, science journals and magazines should not be mandated by human emotions but by independent scientific review. That is simply not happening within the current system.

  • GreenWin

    Hi Frank, please check for my comment just submitted and sent to mod. It is a brief review of the treatment given to Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia-ordered ENEA study on He4 in cold fusion experiments. The link is to the Italian television RAI NEWS24 story translated to English. It explains a lot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bujrxqwRwc0

  • GreenWin

    Hi Frank, please check for my comment just submitted and sent to mod. It is a brief review of the treatment given to Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia-ordered ENEA study on He4 in cold fusion experiments. The link is to the Italian television RAI NEWS24 story translated to English. It explains a lot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bujrxqwRwc0

  • georgehants

    Frank I am most surprised at your latest topic page.
    Cold Fusion in Academic Journals — An Editor’s Perspective
    You have printed in full a personal reply to my comment only putting up two of my original questions to this person.
    It contains personal references to me that can only be seen in full context with my original post.
    You have not put up my response to that personal reply.
    Is this a case of respecting somebody because they have an air of
    officialdom, so we must respect them more than our regular contributers.
    You have given a glowing thanks to him for bothering to put forward the
    establishment view, that of course is a good thing, but deserves no more
    thanks than a normal commenter.
    Please advise.
    George

    • ecatworld

      Sorry, George, I didn’t mean to offend. My focus was on Kat’s point of view since we have never, as far as I know, had a journal editor post here before, and I thought it was useful for us to see things from that perspective.

      George’s original comment can be seen here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/02/rossi-strikes-more-hopeful-tone-regarding-e-cat-tests/comment-page-1/#comment-177361

      • georgehants

        Admin I appreciate your reply.
        I feel that the only way to put this terrible situation right is to re-type your topic page starting with my questions to him, his reply and my reply in return.
        Anything else is completely out of order because of the bias shown with the lack of my full input that then puts his reply in perspective.
        The only other alternative is to start afresh asking this person to write a new topic page header that can be responded to without selective input.
        With much respect.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          This is not even close to a terrible situation. I’m guessing this is the reason you are quitting posting here. In this case I think Frank made the adjustment by mentioning you in the main article together with the questions that led to Kat’s response. He choose to focus on the response rather than the chain of thought you pursued. That is his prerogative. I think if you ask admin to link to your original comment in the main article like he did in his reply to you, everything should be fine.

          If you want more, you come across as overly sensitive.

          To me, your thoughts and insights are most welcome. I hope something like this is not putting you off posting.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Please disregard my speculation of his reason for quitting. He has given his reasons for quitting elsewhere and it was not the above.

  • georgehants

    Frank I am most surprised at your latest topic page.
    Cold Fusion in Academic Journals — An Editor’s Perspective
    You have printed in full a personal reply to my comment only putting up two of my original questions to this person.
    It contains personal references to me that can only be seen in full context with my original post.
    You have not put up my response to that personal reply.
    Is this a case of selective censorship and my views are not worth repeating.
    Is this a case of respecting somebody because they have an air of
    officialdom, so we must respect them more than our regular contributers.
    You have given a glowing thanks to him for bothering to put forward the
    establishment view, that of course is a good thing, but deserves no more
    thanks than a normal commenter.
    Please advise.
    George

    • Frank Acland

      Sorry, George, I didn’t mean to offend. My focus was on Kat’s point of view since we have never, as far as I know, had a journal editor post here before, and I thought it was useful for us to see things from that perspective.

      George’s original comment can be seen here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/02/rossi-strikes-more-hopeful-tone-regarding-e-cat-tests/comment-page-1/#comment-177361

      • georgehants

        Admin I appreciate your reply.
        I feel that the only way to put this terrible situation right is to re-type your topic page starting with my questions to him in full, his reply and my reply in return.
        Anything else is completely out of order because of the bias shown with the lack of my full input that then puts his reply in perspective.
        The only other alternative is to start afresh asking this person to write a new topic page header (without references to me) that can be responded to without selective input.
        With much respect.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          This is not even close to a terrible situation. I’m guessing this is the reason you are quitting posting here. In this case I think Frank made the adjustment by mentioning you in the main article together with the questions that led to Kat’s response. He choose to focus on the response rather than the chain of thought you pursued. That is his prerogative. I think if you ask admin to link to your original comment in the main article like he did in his reply to you, everything should be fine.

          If you want more, you come across as overly sensitive.

          To me, your thoughts and insights are most welcome. I hope something like this is not putting you off posting.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Please disregard my speculation of his reason for quitting. He has given his reasons for quitting elsewhere and it was not the above.

  • Donk970

    What Kat writes reinforces a thought that I’ve expressed here before. What Rossi and others are doing is engineering of the Edisonion thousand attempts at a lightbulb variety. This kind of work is vitally important, arguably far more important than the science right now, but it doesn’t belong in a scientific journal because it doesn’t explain anything. Furthermore, because we in the United States believe that profit is the grand motivator, this kind of information cannot be published if the corporation funding the research intends to make a profit. This is even more the case with LENR because there are no technological or material barriers to pirating the technology. In this case it’s definitely publish and perish. What really burns my biscuits isn’t that journals haven’t published this topic but that researchers haven’t been able to get public funding because so-called experts have consistently panned LENR because it doesn’t fit their particular religious orthodoxy.

  • Donk970

    What Kat writes reinforces a thought that I’ve expressed here before. What Rossi and others are doing is engineering of the Edisonion thousand attempts at a lightbulb variety. This kind of work is vitally important, arguably far more important than the science right now, but it doesn’t belong in a scientific journal because it doesn’t explain anything. Furthermore, because we in the United States believe that profit is the grand motivator, this kind of information cannot be published if the corporation funding the research intends to make a profit. This is even more the case with LENR because there are no technological or material barriers to pirating the technology. In this case it’s definitely publish and perish. What really burns my biscuits isn’t that journals haven’t published this topic but that researchers haven’t been able to get public funding because so-called experts have consistently panned LENR because it doesn’t fit their particular religious orthodoxy.

  • Marc Irvin

    With all do respect, it all seems like BS and conspiracy to me. That is because what Kat Jones states many of us already understand and have factored that into our wonderment. What really galls us is the lack of coverage by even the pseudo-science news rags. The Enquire Magazine publishers of Science and Technology as exemplified by Popular Science and Mechanics Illustrated. They have reported on the off beat over the years. For example, originally front paging CF 25 years ago. Even 60 Minutes did a little follow-up, but from them, not a peep. It just ain’t natural.

    • Donk970

      Case in point is the recent announcement that the NIF has managed after 50 years and many tens of BILLIONS of dollars to, if you ignore a lot of power losses, achieve a barely over unity experimental shot. The press is positively giddy about this while completely ignoring the fact that hundreds of Cold Fusion experiments have shown way over unity. Mind boggling. The press reaction should have been “so what, it’s been done were just waiting on the commercial power plants”

      • Roger Bird

        I am glad that the lamestream media has acted this way. This will make them even look stupider when it all comes out. They have been inviting ridicule for a long time, but since they own the presses, we have not been able to tell the public what jerks they are.

    • Roger Bird

      You are railing against human nature. http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html If a flying aeroplane with some dude named Wright waving down can’t convince some people, how is a cylinder whose temperature is extremely difficult to measure and which could easily be faked going to convince the same kind of people.

      The best strategy is to convince those who can be convinced and to hell with the rest. Science is only good at discovery within the dominant paradigm. Anything outside of the dominant paradigm just isn’t their forte.

  • Marc Irvin

    With all do respect, it all seems like BS and conspiracy to me. That is because what Kat Jones states many of us already understand and have factored that into our wonderment. What really galls us is the lack of coverage by even the pseudo-science news rags. The Enquire Magazine publishers of Science and Technology as exemplified by Popular Science and Mechanics Illustrated. They have reported on the off beat over the years. For example, originally front paging CF 25 years ago. Even 60 Minutes did a little follow-up, but from them, not a peep. It just ain’t natural.

    • Donk970

      Case in point is the recent announcement that the NIF has managed after 50 years and many tens of BILLIONS of dollars to, if you ignore a lot of power losses, achieve a barely over unity experimental shot. The press is positively giddy about this while completely ignoring the fact that hundreds of Cold Fusion experiments have shown way over unity. Mind boggling. The press reaction should have been “so what, it’s been done were just waiting on the commercial power plants”

      • Roger Bird

        I am glad that the lamestream media has acted this way. This will make them even look stupider when it all comes out. They have been inviting ridicule for a long time, but since they own the presses, we have not been able to tell the public what jerks they are.

    • Roger Bird

      You are railing against human nature. http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html If a flying aeroplane with some dude named Wright waving down can’t convince some people, how is a cylinder whose temperature is extremely difficult to measure and which could easily be faked going to convince the same kind of people.

      The best strategy is to convince those who can be convinced and to hell with the rest. Science is only good at discovery within the dominant paradigm. Anything outside of the dominant paradigm just isn’t their forte.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I gather from the closing that when any person of the scientific community rejects a black box demonstration of something on the basis of that something having not been published in a scientific journal, that rejection is either misinformed or specious.

    The demand for publication before a subject is deemed worthy, is a demand for the impossible.

    • Donk970

      In Kat’s defense the point of science is to explain what’s going on in the box not just verify that the box does something. This doesn’t excuse the non science publications that get all giddy about a partial success of an experiment that’s been going on for fifty years and has cost tens of billions of dollars but won’t even mention the many success’s in Cold fusion.

      • Ophelia Rump

        I do not think Kat needs defense. Kat I assume is a professional doing their job.

        Kat has stated that black box papers are not publishable, no matter how interesting. I think that is fair enough.

        But if that is the industry standard, then you cannot demand someone like Rossi to publish.
        Such demands are not achievable, and therefore a false argument.
        The internet community needs to stop accepting that argument as being an honest demand, it is deception.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I gather from the closing that when any person of the scientific community rejects a black box demonstration of something on the basis of that something having not been published in a scientific journal, that rejection is either misinformed or specious.

    The demand for publication before a subject is deemed worthy by the scientific community is not in keeping with the standards of the scientific community.

    • Donk970

      In Kat’s defense the point of science is to explain what’s going on in the box not just verify that the box does something. This doesn’t excuse the non science publications that get all giddy about a partial success of an experiment that’s been going on for fifty years and has cost tens of billions of dollars but won’t even mention the many success’s in Cold fusion.

      • Ophelia Rump

        I do not think Kat needs defense. Kat I assume is a professional doing their job.

        Kat has stated that black box papers are not publishable, no matter how interesting. I think that is fair enough.

        But if that is the industry standard, then you cannot demand someone like Rossi to publish.
        Such demands are not achievable, and therefore a false argument.
        The internet community needs to stop accepting that argument as being an honest demand, it is deception. That argument is like racism, it is simply saying you are not one of us, and therefore your work is unacceptable.

  • fritz194

    If you listen into the introduction of the IAP 101 course from Peter L. Hagelstein – he doesn´t even expect CF to be recognized in his lifetime;-)

  • fritz194

    If you listen into the introduction of the IAP 101 course from Peter L. Hagelstein – he doesn´t even expect CF to be recognized in his lifetime;-)

  • Donk970

    You’re absolutely right on the why bother publish if you have a commercial partner to take your product to manufacturing. But.. the scientific journals are there to disseminate scientific theory and supporting experimental proof. They have nothing to do with endorsing anything. It certainly helps a researchers credibility to be published but it’s not an absolute necessity. At the end of the day if someone like Rossi manages to get an audience with a big VC outfit like IH and can present a really convincing demonstration of the technology, credentials don’t really matter. You could be a housewife from Pokipsy for all the VC guys care.

  • Job001

    No conspiracy is needed to explain greed. Existing funding processes are monopolistic with competition excluded. Perhaps a better metaphor is “Den of thieves”, naturally they don’t share even with fabulous research ideas.

    • Buck

      Job001,

      I agree. Adam Smith had a nice way of describing the effects of greed on a population: “The Invisible Hand”. Where a common economic interest becomes a strange attractor through greed, bringing disparate players together into a group coordinated by the logic of greed . . . no phone call required.

  • Job001

    No conspiracy is needed to explain greed. Existing funding processes are monopolistic with competition excluded. Perhaps a better metaphor is “Den of thieves”, naturally they don’t share even with fabulous research ideas.
    The point is science funding is extremely competitive, marketing requires mendacity while science requires minimal bias. History shows breakthroughs scientists and ideas are typically badmouthed, blacklisted, not published, burnt at the stake(Bruno G) or driven into exile(F&P).

    • Buck

      Job001,

      I agree. Adam Smith had a nice way of describing the effects of greed on a population: “The Invisible Hand”, where a common economic interest becomes a strange attractor through greed, bringing disparate players together into a group coordinated by the logic of greed . . . no phone call required.

  • Steve H

    An interesting, balanced perspective on the real world. Many thanks.

    • georgehants

      Steve H, do you mean the good “real world” or the bad “real world”

    • BuildItNow

      Hummm…
      me thinks that some of the “editors” and “reviewers” could be starting to wake up to a “being found out” as frauds, loosing their jobs, possibly facing law suits.

      Could there be an EnergyGate investigation?
      Who, for instance, is going to face the music on the environmental damage of the last 30 years, billions living unnecessarily in poverty, global weather change, toxic sludge from coal ash spilling into rivers, Fukushima, etc. etc.

      Will those complicit in ignoring or deliberately delaying “even the vague possibility” of a huge benefit to humanity escape free, along with their loot made from keeping the old technology going?

      Maybe they will, and, maybe they won’t. Are some getting nervous enough to respond to georgehaunts with excuses?

  • Steve H

    An interesting, balanced perspective on the real world. Many thanks.

    • georgehants

      Steve H, do you mean the good “real world” or the bad “real world”

    • BuildItNow

      Hummm…
      me thinks that some of the “editors” and “reviewers” could be starting to wake up to a “being found out” as frauds, loosing their jobs, possibly facing law suits.

      Could there be an EnergyGate investigation?
      Who, for instance, is going to face the music on the environmental damage of the last 30 years, billions living unnecessarily in poverty, global weather change, toxic sludge from coal ash spilling into rivers, Fukushima, etc. etc.

      Will those complicit in ignoring or deliberately delaying “even the vague possibility” of a huge benefit to humanity escape free, along with their loot made from keeping the old technology going?

      Maybe they will, and, maybe they won’t. Are some getting nervous enough to respond to georgehaunts with excuses?

  • georgehants

    It must be remembered that this person is just an editor of a publication giving information to the public and scientists.
    He can have no idea if a paper is importent if it involves new science, what is the good of looking at old text books or asking somebody qualified below the new report.
    In his hands or the committee lies a responsibility of equal responsibility to a jury in a capital crime.
    By the wave of a hand they can dismiss all five of Einstein’s 1905 papers, or release them to the World.
    Who was capable in 1905 of judging the effect of those papers, almost nobody, just a few tentative confirmations of the most nebulous form such as the perihelion of Mercury.
    The accuracy of those measurements where hardly up to heavy scrutiny.
    So how did they get published?
    The P&F fiasco involving highly qualified people shows what can happen if corruption and incompetence are not rigorously removed.
    How does this or any editor know which “crackpot” theory’s or reports are fools gold or real gold.
    Until their is a recognition that when a paper cannot be confirmed by Dogma and expert “opinion” it must still be published, perhaps with a warning, then they are failing not only science but every person in the World.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Maybe a fiasco like CF is just what is needed to shake up the science world. Maybe there will be a total change of the scientific review system after CF devices get to market and the public will start to demand (hopefully) explanations.

  • georgehants

    It must be remembered that this person is just an editor of a publication giving information to the public and scientists.
    He can have no idea if a paper is important if it involves new science, what is the good of looking at old text books or asking somebody qualified below the science of the new report.
    In his hands or the committee lies a responsibility of equal responsibility to a jury in a capital crime.
    By the wave of a hand they can dismiss all five of Einstein’s 1905 papers, or release them to the World.
    Who was capable in 1905 of judging the effect of those papers, almost nobody, just a few tentative confirmations of the most nebulous form such as the perihelion of Mercury.
    The accuracy of those measurements where hardly up to heavy scrutiny.
    So how did they get published?
    The P&F fiasco involving highly qualified people shows what can happen if corruption and incompetence are not rigorously removed.
    How does this or any editor know which “crackpot” theory’s or reports are fools gold or real gold.
    Until there is a recognition that when a paper cannot be confirmed by Dogma and expert “opinion” it must still be published, perhaps with a warning, then they are failing not only science but every person in the World.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Maybe a fiasco like CF is just what is needed to shake up the science world. Maybe there will be a total change of the scientific review system after CF devices get to market and the public will start to demand (hopefully) explanations.

  • observer

    What is wrong with just publishing observations?

    • Freethinker

      Yes, that is a ridicoulus claim.

      There are many a paper, I bet in every field within science where there is anything quantifiable and measurable, containing just that. Many ofcourse relate to some underlying theory and some instrument built. Topics that may justify seperate papers. There will be a paper on results. Typically there will be table after table of data. Typically not the raw stuff, but reduced to tell the story of how the empirical world so neatly match theory – or not. Often full set of data are published elsewhere, especially these day when data tend to be vast in volume. Often a large number of people are involved, and it all may often result not in one paper, but rather a series of papers that may strech out over years.

      So it goes. Such papers are NOT unheard of, neither are they rare.

  • georgehants

    Will just say now that that is my last post, I must thank everybody, Admin etc for 2+ interesting years.
    There are some very good clear thinking people on page that hopefully will continue to try and get the World moving in a good direction.
    There are also many people unable to break away from an unjustified reliance and belief in authority and Dogma that are helping no one,
    least of all those children etc. dying daily for need of food and clean water.
    Best wishes to everyone.
    George

    • Job001

      Well, george, I’ll miss you.

      Take a vacation, come back as good ole you or as a new avatar.
      When the going gets tough, the tough get creativity going.

      Think of it this way, we all start naked and ignorant.
      Some improve quickly, some take longer.

      • georgehants

        Thanks Job001 🙂

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      May I inquire why this is your last post?

      Are you disappointed in the majority of online people and giving up on giving them arguments to change their minds? Just curious.

      • georgehants

        Zeddicus, For years I have lived with the embarrassment of what my generation have done to the World.
        I am nearly 70 and after battling the likes of maryyugo and his gang of crazy’s, then onto ECW for two years regarding the crimes of Cold Fusion, I think I have, done my bit.
        I can say that looking at this string, the number of people who are waking up to the pathetic tricks that the establishment play to try and avoid facing the Truth is encouraging.
        Thank you for your defence above, pointing out the cheap methods used to try and divert attention from the failings of journals etc.
        It is I think time for the whole scientific establishment to be given the biggest enema that has ever been prescribed.
        I hope our younger generations can do better than mine.
        Best wishes.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          George, you will be sorely missed online if that is what you really want. Though you have been a fierce warrior, there comes a time to lay down your weapon (keyboard :))

          Your and my generations all make mistakes. At least you are aware of it. But do not make the mistake of taking responsibility for it. That is too great a burden. You can only effect your direct environment, anything more is only possible through great effort most of us are not capable of.

          Anyway, it really is up to the younger generations at some point. I would welcome you back anytime though. 70 isn’t that old!

          And as for a parting, I will repeat your best comment yet:
          “It is I think time for the whole scientific establishment to be given the biggest enema that has ever been prescribed.”

          Take care!

          • georgehants

            Zeddicus, thanks for your wise thoughts.
            In 1947 the British introduced the national health system that gave free medical care for all including dentistry, etc, Things were Wonderful. people cared after the pulling together of the war years.

            Since that time we have just seen nothing but downhill in quality of life, disregarding some material gains, washing machines etc, that have been of great benefit, but capitalism, money, greed is destroying the World.
            Only production is important, and that has risen many times since 1947 and yet no reduction in hours worked, we are now raising retirement age, etc. money, money, money not for most ordinary individuals, just the rich and powerful and to keep a crazy system going.

            Most people inherently have a good nature as shown when volenters where needed for the Olympic duties, many thousands volunteered, but it is buried behind fear for work. how to pay one’s bills, constant advertising showing us me need more, more, more.
            My god, I just keep going on and on don’t I.

          • Bernie777

            georgehants, I know what you mean, I am 73, I have seen an increasing crass society develop in the US, money scams of all kinds feed on the old, uneducated and most vulnerable of our society. When I was 21, a family could have a nice life with one wage earner, now it takes two or three working in a family to maintain a decent living standard. This has had devastating effects on our society, children without a mother/parent guiding their moral development, all family decisions are based on money and how to survive. I am on a crusade to simply inform our young what has happened and why, we need your voice too!

          • georgehants

            Bernie777, I am sure you sometimes feel like me that things have gone to far with material wants and not needs.
            Happiness and quality of life have by capitalism been cleverly used for the young to think that only money brings of those things.
            The whole establishment is designed to maintain the waste and foolishness of capitalism, that is totally unsuited and unneeded in modern life with it’s high productivity.
            Maybe Cold Fusion will help, but I feel the instinct of some for power and always more then others will take some putting down.
            It’s good to see a few of us old codgers have and still are trying to talk some sense, but the opposition certainly have the upper hand these days, where common sense is I think almost extinct.

            Best wishes

          • Bernie koppenhofer

            George, Capitalism is probably the best system ever devised, if it is regulated, if it is not regulated, it turns into anarcy. I am afraid we are headed toward the latter unless something changes
            ,

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Very well worded, Bernie. Let me rephrase it: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            The world we live in is profoundly unequal; half the world lives on less than 2 dollars a day, a billion people with no access to clean water, 2.5 billion people with no access to sanitation, a billion going to bed hungry every night, one in four deaths every year from AIDS, TB, malaria and a variety of diseases associated with dirty water, 80% of them under five years of age.

            It’s also unstable because of all kinds of perceived threats of terror, weapons of mass destruction and the spread of global diseases and a sense that we are vulnerable to it in a way that we haven’t been before.

            It is also unsustainable because of climate change, resource depletion and species destruction.
            (Bill Clinton has a lot to say about these things.)

            The western countries that we live in are no longer democracies but economic driven governments that do not care for the individual. Technology is advancing faster than moral and political leadership can keep up with, leading to businesses starting to dictate politics. The current business entangled political system is inadequate to deal with the issues of
            the time we live in. Moral leadership is gone and in America’s case
            replaced with a very Machiavellistic oriented leadership.

            I believe the world is on a crossroads and needs to redefine itself. I also believe this is something that the younger generation needs to sort out. One can only talk to other people, maybe make others aware of the direction the world is going and maybe get a movement going that demands change. Hopefully a technology like LENR can help change the world as it may solve some problems.

            You see, I can go on also 🙂 But I do not take responsibility for the current state of the world. I try to live responsibly and try not to support the systems I think are wrong, but my individual influence is very small. But lot’s of individuals together may stand a chance of changing the world. This is my charge to the younger generation, for they have to choose what kind of world they want to live in.

        • NT

          George, I first met you on that other blog when it started and then was talen over by the Pathoskeps and we left and came here. I am now 75 and been fighting this fight since P & F in 1989 and have no intention of throwing in the towel until Rossi delivers the home units I have ordered – Ha! Stick with us fella your voice is invaluable IMHO…

          • georgehants

            NT, I shall be watching out for you now leading the fight, Ha
            Best wishes.

          • NT

            George, If you ever get across the pond to the states let me know. You are welcome to stay with us at our cabin in the Rocky Mountains and enjoy some campfire chats. You can always reach me via my website http://www.cce-mt.org and click contact me at bottom. I am the developer for our organization (Citizens For Clean Energy, Inc.) that is some 2000 members strong at this point. I have been at promoting Cold Fusion by this group for over ten years now. Hoping that 2014 will be see the culmination of all the efforts. Keep the faith fella and “Happy Trails” to you…

          • georgehants

            NT, I am overwhelmed, thank you and thank everybody for their comments.
            Will try and clear my head for a while and watch all the progress on ECW.
            Your Website is noted.
            All the best.

        • BroKeeper

          George, you have expose here the broken consequences of the greatest gift given to us all – Free Will. We all are learning in this dot of time the precious eternal lesson: “it doesn’t work”, eventually leaving only one way that will – Truth. These painful lessons will be indelibly marked forever – “been there, done that” so we can enjoy the rest of the never ending time line without fear and sadness, but sharing eternal joy and happiness with the Originator and each other. With this said there are moments of time we are given a chance to make it right again by Mercy’s source. Perhaps via the new energy.

          This is my observation and conclusion from my many years of experiential failures with some successful moments. So please, George, continue to share your 70 accumulated years of wisdom to enlighten us from repeating those hard lessons and help quicken our path to that Truth. Please come back after your sabbatical. Thank you for all your comments.

          • georgehants

            BroKeeper, many thanks, you I think can understand the frustration etc. of continuously battling with the self-serving, arrogance people, such as journal editors etc.
            Instead of coming out with complete honesty and saying yes we are making mistakes, the peer system is faulty, we must change, they spend all their time acting important, denying any fault, making excuses for why they are right etc. etc. etc.
            Only the scientists who work to produce theory’s and Research results are important not pen-pushing editors or administrates and bloody “opinion experts”

            The system must be put in place for all knowledge to be published and everybody then becomes the peers, if they wish to do more Research on the subject then they can do so, which clearly will then over time prove the authors right or wrong.
            Not being judged by people thinking they have a divine right to judge a scientists work.
            As for me putting up any more of my ramblings, let’s see 🙂

  • georgehants

    Will just say now that that is my last post, I must thank everybody, Admin etc for 2+ interesting years.
    There are some very good clear thinking people on page that hopefully will continue to try and get the World moving in a good direction.
    There are also many people unable to break away from an unjustified reliance and belief in authority and Dogma that are helping no one,
    least of all those children etc. dying daily for need of food and clean water.
    Best wishes to everyone.
    George

    • Job001

      Well, george, I’ll miss you.

      Take a vacation, come back as good ole you or as a new avatar.
      When the going gets tough, the tough get creativity going.

      Think of it this way, we all start naked and ignorant.
      Some improve quickly, some take longer.

      • georgehants

        Thanks Job001 🙂

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      May I inquire why this is your last post?

      Are you disappointed in the majority of online people and giving up on giving them arguments to change their minds? Just curious.

      • georgehants

        Zeddicus, For years I have lived with the embarrassment of what my generation have done to the World.
        I am nearly 70 and after battling the likes of maryyugo and his gang of crazy’s, then onto ECW for two years regarding the crimes of Cold Fusion, I think I have, done my bit.
        I can say that looking at this string, the number of people who are waking up to the pathetic tricks that the establishment play to try and avoid facing the Truth is encouraging.
        Thank you for your defence above, pointing out the cheap methods used to try and divert attention from the failings of journals etc.
        It is I think time for the whole scientific establishment to be given the biggest enema that has ever been prescribed.
        I hope our younger generations can do better than mine.
        Best wishes.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          George, you will be sorely missed online if that is what you really want. Though you have been a fierce warrior, there comes a time to lay down your weapon (keyboard :))

          Your and my generations all make mistakes. At least you are aware of it. But do not make the mistake of taking responsibility for it. That is too great a burden. You can only effect your direct environment, anything more is only possible through great effort most of us are not capable of.

          Anyway, it really is up to the younger generations at some point. I would welcome you back anytime though. 70 isn’t that old!

          And as for a parting, I will repeat your best comment yet:
          “It is I think time for the whole scientific establishment to be given the biggest enema that has ever been prescribed.”

          Take care!

          • georgehants

            Zeddicus, thanks for your wise thoughts.
            In 1947 the British introduced the national health system that gave free medical care for all including dentistry, etc, Things were Wonderful. people cared after the pulling together of the war years.
            Since that time we have just seen nothing but downhill in quality of life, disregarding some material gains, washing machines etc, that have been of great benefit, but capitalism, money, greed is destroying the World.
            Only production is important, and that has risen many times since 1947 and yet no reduction in hours worked, we are now raising retirement age, etc. money, money, money, not for most ordinary individuals, just the rich and powerful and to keep a crazy system going.
            Most people inherently have a good nature as shown when volunteers where needed for the Olympic duties, many thousands volunteered, but it is buried behind fear for work. how to pay one’s bills, constant advertising showing us we need more, more, more.
            My god, I just keep going on and on don’t I.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            georgehants, I know what you mean, I am 73, I have seen an increasing crass society develop in the US, money scams of all kinds feed on the old, uneducated and most vulnerable of our society. When I was 21, a family could have a nice life with one wage earner, now it takes two or three working in a family to maintain a decent living standard. This has had devastating effects on our society, children without a mother/parent guiding their moral development, all family decisions are based on money and how to survive. I am on a crusade to simply inform our young what has happened and why, we need your voice too!

          • georgehants

            Bernie777, I am sure you sometimes feel like me that things have gone to far with material wants and not needs.
            Happiness and quality of life have by capitalism been cleverly used for the young to think that only money brings of those things.
            The whole establishment is designed to maintain the waste and foolishness of capitalism, that is totally unsuited and unneeded in modern life with it’s high productivity.
            Maybe Cold Fusion will help, but I feel the instinct of some for power and always more then others will take some putting down.
            It’s good to see a few of us old codgers have and still are trying to talk some sense, but the opposition certainly have the upper hand these days, where common sense is I think almost extinct.

            Best wishes

          • Bernie koppenhofer

            George, Capitalism is probably the best system ever devised, if it is regulated, if it is not regulated, it turns into anarcy. I am afraid we are headed toward the latter unless something changes
            ,

          • bachcole

            Bernie, capitalism was not devised any more than sex was devised. It just sort of sprang forth. What was devised was the regulation. Really good regulations make for really good capitaliism, and bad regulations, like too much or too little or biased regulations make for really bad capitalism. But good people will trade fairly. Bad people will rob, and that is why we need regulations.

          • Brokeeper

            Agreed Roger, however the greater the imbalance between the loophole affluent and the struggling middle class allocates less tax base to support those regulations. LENR is the only current effective mechanism to bring back economical equilibrium and eventually redefinition and reinforcement of those regulations. However, as you well know, no system can legislate immorality only a change in the heart.

          • bachcole

            I think that this insight is profound and impressive. Who would have thought that the discovery of oil saved the whales (although they still might die because of pollution.) It wasn’t until recently that Michael Medved pointed out (to me) that the discovery of oil in Titusville, Pennsylvania saved the whales. But we have seen that cold fusion will help to reduce income disparity.

            Part of the cold fusion earthquake will be the ideas about decentralization and income disparity and the foolishness of worshipping the establishment as a legitimate form of epistemology.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Very well worded, Bernie. Let me rephrase it: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            The world we live in is profoundly unequal; half the world lives on less than 2 dollars a day, a billion people with no access to clean water, 2.5 billion people with no access to sanitation, a billion going to bed hungry every night, one in four deaths every year from AIDS, TB, malaria and a variety of diseases associated with dirty water, 80% of them under five years of age.

            It’s also unstable because of all kinds of perceived threats of terror, weapons of mass destruction and the spread of global diseases and a sense that we are vulnerable to it in a way that we haven’t been before.

            It is also unsustainable because of climate change, resource depletion and species destruction.
            (Bill Clinton has a lot to say about these things.)

            The western countries that we live in are no longer democracies but economic driven governments that do not care for the individual. Technology is advancing faster than moral and political leadership can keep up with, leading to businesses starting to dictate politics. The current business entangled political system is inadequate to deal with the issues of
            the time we live in. Moral leadership is gone and in America’s case
            replaced with a very Machiavellistic oriented leadership.

            I believe the world is on a crossroads and needs to redefine itself. I also believe this is something that the younger generation needs to sort out. One can only talk to other people, maybe make others aware of the direction the world is going and maybe get a movement going that demands change. Hopefully a technology like LENR can help change the world as it may solve some problems.

            You see, I can go on also 🙂 But I do not take responsibility for the current state of the world. I try to live responsibly and try not to support the systems I think are wrong, but my individual influence is very small. But lot’s of individuals together may stand a chance of changing the world. This is my charge to the younger generation, for they have to choose what kind of world they want to live in.

          • bachcole

            “The world we live in is profoundly unequal;” Being married to one of those people who was supposedly “unequal”, I can say with some authority that we are judging people’s happiness level by our standards, which standards are severely limited and biased. My wife is constantly telling me “at least we were happy, everyone smiled, we laughed, we giggled, we were all very affectionate” etc. etc. etc. The West is burdened with unbridled wants: lust, greed, and anger; selfishness, excessive individualism (everyone has a phucking opinion), etc. etc. We may be saving poor people from their physical poverty. Who is going to save us from our spiritual, emotional, and social poverty? I am not feeling sorry for myself, just stating a fact, but I have absolutely no friends whatsoever outside of the Internet and my family. We the West are seriously impoverished emotionally and socially and spiritually. We are a sick and decaying society. It is great that georgehants spends time helping other people; too bad the rest of us have such impoverished emotional, social, and spiritual lives.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            I said the world we live in is unequal, not the people.

            For the rest I can sort of agree with you.

          • bachcole

            No insult intended. I just used that phrase as a short cut.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            I know. I should have expressed myself better. We’re ok Roger 😉

        • NT

          George, I first met you on that other blog when it started and then was talen over by the Pathoskeps and we left and came here. I am now 75 and been fighting this fight since P & F in 1989 and have no intention of throwing in the towel until Rossi delivers the home units I have ordered – Ha! Stick with us fella your voice is invaluable IMHO…

          • georgehants

            NT, I shall be watching out for you now leading the fight, Ha
            Best wishes.

          • NT

            George, If you ever get across the pond to the states let me know. You are welcome to stay with us at our cabin in the Rocky Mountains and enjoy some campfire chats. You can always reach me via my website http://www.cce-mt.org and click contact me at bottom. I am the developer for our organization (Citizens For Clean Energy, Inc.) that is some 2000 members strong at this point. I have been at promoting Cold Fusion by this group for over ten years now. Hoping that 2014 will be see the culmination of all the efforts. Keep the faith fella and “Happy Trails” to you…

          • georgehants

            NT, I am overwhelmed, thank you and thank everybody for their comments.
            Will try and clear my head for a while and watch all the progress on ECW.
            Your Website is noted.
            All the best.

        • Brokeeper

          George, you have exposed here the broken consequences of the greatest gift given to us all – Free Will. We all are learning in this dot of time the precious eternal lesson: “it doesn’t work”, eventually leaving only one way that will – Truth. These painful lessons will be indelibly marked forever – “been there, done that” so we can enjoy the rest of the never ending time line without fear and sadness, but sharing eternal joy and happiness with the Originator and each other. With this said there are moments of time we are given a chance to make it right again by Mercy’s source. Perhaps via the new energy.

          This is my observation and conclusion from my many years of experiential failures with some successful moments. So please, George, continue to share your 70 accumulated years of wisdom to enlighten us from repeating those hard lessons and help quicken our path to that Truth. Please come back after your sabbatical. Thank you for all your comments.

          • bachcole

            I understand George’s desire for a sabbatical. Unless there is some real news from a real source, all of what we do here is playing in the afterglow of the last real news from a real source.

          • georgehants

            Thank you, but you do not understand , it is not at all the delay, things are now moving very fast, but the reasons for the delay.
            The lack of official news just shows how much more work must be done against the “conspiracy” of science and especially the journals etc. to put the situation right.
            That is what I am tired of, battling with people with no spiritual feeling for every individual and humanity as a whole, just blind self-importance and misplaced pride.
            Time for more of the young to wake-up, clear their heads and start to change things, instead of excepting the status quo and only having one question —- Am I o.k. Jack.
            Regarding Cold Fusion etc. as always the TRUTH will come out in it’s own time and I can wait.
            Best

          • georgehants

            BroKeeper, many thanks, you I think can understand the frustration etc. of continuously battling with the self-serving, arrogance people, such as journal editors etc.
            Instead of coming out with complete honesty and saying yes we are making mistakes, the peer system is faulty, we must change, they spend all their time acting important, denying any fault, making excuses for why they are right, etc. etc. etc.
            Only the scientists who work to produce theory’s and Research results are important not pen-pushing editors or administrates and bloody “opinion experts”
            The system must be put in place for all knowledge to be published and everybody then becomes the peers, if they wish to do more Research on the subject then they can do so, which clearly will then over time prove the authors right or wrong.
            Not being judged by people thinking they have a divine right to judge a scientists work.
            As for me putting up any more of my ramblings, let’s see 🙂

  • Mark

    I have a real problem with the disrespectful tone of the comment regarding conspiracy theories. There is nothing wrong with theorizing about possible conspiracies. They DO happen.

    • Curbina

      Mark, we can agree totally on that, but here we are dealing with “mainstream” public recognition of LENR, and conspiracies, as reall as they are, are still a laughing stock from the “mainstream” point of view. That’s why I try to take distance from calling secrecy of inventions a conspiracy, it is a verifiable fact.

      • kdk

        I think CF it truly undeniable at this point, this is exactly the time to air the laundry and to try to make a change. It really doesn’t matter if it’s a laughing stock for fools while well connected companies are close to commercialization. Maybe their laughter will even be poignant lessons for themselves (or not).

        • Curbina

          I certainly hope this to be the outcome at the end of the LENR to market road, but if you think we are near there, I can assure you we have not even started to get there.

          • kdk

            Beginning of the road to mass adoption, but critical mass has been reached, IMHO.

  • Curbina

    There’s an aspect of the discussion about LENR that I have not seen mentioned here, (I apologize if it has been and I have not seen it), and it’s related to the Secrecy of Inventions Act of the US. If you don’t know what it is, please refer to this link to get updated.

    http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/2010/10/invention_secrecy_2010/

    I have been researching similar legal bodies in other countries and, albeit not as an specific legislative body as in the US case, the same restriction does exists in countries like UK, France, Germany, and Canada, of which I have confirmed so far, that leads me to think there might be in all countries that have signed intelectual property agreements. The US has a list of technologies that potentially can be submited to the patent secrecy, which was only public after a FOIA request, and is the 1975 version. The UK also has a list, that in this case is public. Canada also has a list that has yet to be of public knowledge. The other 2 countries don’t have lists, but this only means that the “threat for national security” criteria is to be studied in every case, and the defense departments have access to all patents that are applied for.

    It has been mentioned here that the US patent office has instructions about Cold fusion patents, and this is documented with the famous USPTO internal memo of 1990 that most if us have seen around. But I have not seen discussed that LENR patents fall directly into the categories that, at least in the known version of the US list and the UK list, would be deemed defense sensitive and hence possibly to be subject of secrecy.

    Many of us have heard about energy supression as a conspiracy, but the fact is that there are real legislative bodies that can be used to avoid a technology be released to the public, under the justification of national security. As we don’t know what inventions are currently being kept secret because of these legislative bodies, we can speculate that LENR, being in the range of sensitive technologies, might be treated in the way it is not because is not real science, but because it’s so widespread that applying the secrecy laws to it would be impossible to be unnoticed.

    Just floating the idea to see if you see this as a possibility.

    As an example of the technologies that are potentially subject to secrecy in the US, are solar cells over 20% efficiency. That alone is very telling.

    • Roger Bird

      I have seen some mention of it, but not much. I suspect that it is way too late for them to use that.

      • Curbina

        That’s why I think the concerted strategy was to ignore it publicly while developing it within the defense sphere (as in Spawar or Darpa), and discredit the researchers, to avoid it become widespread in the civill world. This is of course speculation, but the fact remains that LENR has been stalled for over 23 years.

    • Mark

      You posted: “Many of us have heard about energy supression as a conspiracy, but the fact is that there are real legislative bodies that can be used to avoid a technology be released to the public, under the justification of national security.” I’m interested in why you seem to be trying to differentiate “real legislative bodies that can be used to avoid a technology be released to the public, under the justification of national security” from the concept of conspiracy. This sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy, to me.

      • Curbina

        I make this differentiation because the term “conspiracy” is normally used to refer to unprobable and unlikely events, thought to exist only in the mind of paranoic people, and in this case there is real legislative bodies that can be effectively used to avoid inventions to be available to the public, and on the other hand, is impossible to know which technologies have been subject to this legislation, hence, there’s no way to audit the use of this legislative power.

        • Mark

          Yep – this is what I like to complain about. There is nothing about the term “conspiracy” that necessarily implies “unprobable and unlikely events, thought to exist only in the mind of paranoic people.” I understand that it is used that way by a lot of people, but it shouldn’t be, and I think that it is harmful to our society that it has become that way. Well, I guess I would just encourage people to start using the word “conspiracy” more to try to get out of this hole that we have been dug into. I won’t post any more on this.

          • Curbina

            Then we agree, but the damage to the term conspiracy is IMHO already a done deal. We have to find ways to avoid the negative connotation, at least if we want a wide audience.

        • kdk

          Like dozens of senators conspiring to kill Caesar or somebody to fake something like the Gulf of Tonkin? Or like Jay Gould trying to corner the gold market to make profits elsewhere as well?

          It only takes a few shills connected to oil or nuclear businesses on the DoE board to shut it down, with something controversial like cf, accompanied by falsified reports of failure of replication (MIT and Mallove) or claims of fraud (Bockris).

          • Curbina

            I already said in other comment that I don’t think conspiracy is nonsense, but most people do, hence I prefer to take distance of the concept and talk about verifiable facts. From there you can build a solid case for exposing the other yet unknown, but plausible, facts.

          • kdk

            I apologize, there do need to be the sane-seeming to the masses voices to bring the initial attention to something.

          • Job001

            Low bias science is vastly better than high bias marketing. It is preferable to avoid name calling and slander, IMO. On the other hand, it is science to understand our bias and assumptions.
            In this research field “Funding bias” is huge. Established mainstream physics has a near stranglehold monopoly on Government funding. Whomever tries to compete or speak out get’s destroyed, not published, unemployed, exiled(F&P), or slandered as (“conspirators, incompetents, scammers, frauds, etc”). This is not science but vicious competitive “Funding bias”. I consider “conspiracy” a trumped up slander from the establishment side.
            It is difficult to fight corruption and first we need to understand what it is. Monopolies are corrupt because they produce high priced scarcity, loss of freedom, and mendacity(false facts).
            I fight false facts and mendacity which have no place in science.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      It’s possible that there is such a list that suppresses inventions by not approving patents that violate that list.

      The problem I see with such suppression lists is that it wouldn’t really work. If true, it would discourage firms from those countries that have such lists to research into those areas, but not firms in countries that don’t have those hurdles. China with their vastly different patent system for example would benefit hugely because there government does not discourage that kind of research. In the end, all countries that would research such repressed areas would benefit and soon have a sizable lead in research and probably economics.

    • Sanjeev

      So that explain the retardation in progress of solar cell tech. Who will want to develop an efficient PV cell when the invention is going to be buried under a law, because a 21% efficient cell is too dangerous for national security? Fortunately, the solar has grown a lot in other places and US is catching up.

      Energy conversion devices with efficiency greater than 80% are also forbidden. Does that include fuel efficient cars also? Its a bit too much to believe, is there really such a law? If yes, the oil lobby has crossed all limits and they have ensured that the demand for oil will never drop in US.

      • Curbina

        Sanjeev, the US legislation is real, also the list of technologies affected by this legislation, and also the similar legislations in the other countries I mentioned, I have verified it from official online sources and also from press releases related to those legislative bodies. If you see the list of technologies affected by the Secrecy of Inventions Act, you can also see that MHD generators are listed.

        • Sanjeev

          Simply amazing.

      • Allan Shura

        So we are bombarded by messages to max out to achieve our potential but we are forced to produce and used only cripple ware.

  • Curbina

    There’s an aspect of the discussion about LENR that I have not seen mentioned here, (I apologize if it has been and I have not seen it), and it’s related to the Secrecy of Inventions Act of the US. If you don’t know what it is, please refer to this link to get updated.

    http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/2010/10/invention_secrecy_2010/

    I have been researching similar legal bodies in other countries and, albeit not as an specific legislative body as in the US case, the same restriction does exists in countries like UK, France, Germany, and Canada, of which I have confirmed so far, that leads me to think there might be in all countries that have signed intelectual property agreements. The US has a list of technologies that potentially can be submited to the patent secrecy, which was only public after a FOIA request, and is the 1971 version. The UK also has a list, that in this case is public. Canada also has a list that has yet to be of public knowledge. The other 2 countries don’t have lists, but this only means that the “threat for national security” criteria is to be studied in every case, and the defense departments have access to all patents that are applied for.

    It has been mentioned here that the US patent office has instructions about Cold fusion patents, and this is documented with the famous USPTO internal memo of 1990 that most if us have seen around. But I have not seen discussed that LENR patents fall directly into the categories that, at least in the known version of the US list and the UK list, would be deemed defense sensitive and hence possibly to be subject of secrecy.

    Many of us have heard about energy supression as a conspiracy, but the fact is that there are real legislative bodies that can be used to avoid a technology be released to the public, under the justification of national security. As we don’t know what inventions are currently being kept secret because of these legislative bodies, we can speculate that LENR, being in the range of sensitive technologies, might be treated in the way it is not because is not real science, but because it’s so widespread that applying the secrecy laws to it would be impossible to be unnoticed.

    Just floating the idea to see if you see this as a possibility.

    As an example of the technologies that are potentially subject to secrecy in the US, are solar cells over 20% efficiency. That alone is very telling.

    • Roger Bird

      I have seen some mention of it, but not much. I suspect that it is way too late for them to use that.

      • Curbina

        That’s why I think the concerted strategy was to ignore it publicly while developing it within the defense sphere (as in Spawar or Darpa), and discredit the researchers, to avoid it become widespread in the civill world. This is of course speculation, but the fact remains that LENR has been stalled for over 23 years.

    • Mark

      You posted: “Many of us have heard about energy supression as a conspiracy, but the fact is that there are real legislative bodies that can be used to avoid a technology be released to the public, under the justification of national security.” I’m interested in why you seem to be trying to differentiate “real legislative bodies that can be used to avoid a technology be released to the public, under the justification of national security” from the concept of conspiracy. This sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy, to me.

      • Curbina

        I make this differentiation because the term “conspiracy” is normally used to refer to unprobable and unlikely events, thought to exist only in the mind of paranoic people, and in this case there is real legislative bodies that can be effectively used to avoid inventions to be available to the public, and on the other hand, is impossible to know which technologies have been subject to this legislation, hence, there’s no way to audit the use of this legislative power.

        • Mark

          Yep – this is what I like to complain about. There is nothing about the term “conspiracy” that necessarily implies “unprobable and unlikely events, thought to exist only in the mind of paranoic people.” I understand that it is used that way by a lot of people, but it shouldn’t be, and I think that it is harmful to our society that it has become that way. Well, I guess I would just encourage people to start using the word “conspiracy” more to try to get out of this hole that we have been dug into. I won’t post any more on this.

          • Curbina

            Then we agree, but the damage to the term conspiracy is IMHO already a done deal. We have to find ways to avoid the negative connotation, at least if we want a wide audience.

        • kdk

          Like dozens of senators conspiring to kill Caesar or somebody to fake something like the Gulf of Tonkin? Or like Jay Gould trying to corner the gold market to make profits elsewhere as well?

          It only takes a few shills connected to oil or nuclear businesses on the DoE board to shut it down, with something controversial like cf, accompanied by falsified reports of failure of replication (MIT and Mallove) or claims of fraud (Bockris).

          • Curbina

            I already said in other comment that I don’t think conspiracy is nonsense, but most people do, hence I prefer to take distance of the concept and talk about verifiable facts. From there you can build a solid case for exposing the other yet unknown, but plausible, facts.

          • kdk

            I apologize, there do need to be the sane-seeming to the masses voices to bring the initial attention to something.

          • Job001

            Low bias science is vastly better than high bias marketing. It is preferable to avoid name calling and slander, IMO. On the other hand, it is science to understand our bias and assumptions.
            In this research field “Funding bias” is huge. Established mainstream physics has a near stranglehold monopoly on Government funding. Whomever tries to compete or speak out get’s destroyed, not published, unemployed, exiled(F&P), or slandered as (“conspirators, incompetents, scammers, frauds, etc”). This is not science but vicious competitive “Funding bias”. I consider “conspiracy” a trumped up slander from the establishment side.
            It is difficult to fight corruption and first we need to understand what it is. Monopolies are corrupt because they produce high priced scarcity, loss of freedom, and mendacity(false facts).
            I fight false facts and mendacity which have no place in science.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      It’s possible that there is such a list that suppresses inventions by not approving patents that violate that list.

      The problem I see with such suppression lists is that it wouldn’t really work. If true, it would discourage firms from those countries that have such lists to research into those areas, but not firms in countries that don’t have those hurdles. China with their vastly different patent system for example would benefit hugely because there government does not discourage that kind of research. In the end, all countries that would research such repressed areas would benefit and soon have a sizable lead in research and probably economics.

    • Sanjeev

      So that explain the retardation in progress of solar cell tech. Who will want to develop an efficient PV cell when the invention is going to be buried under a law, because a 21% efficient cell is too dangerous for national security? Fortunately, the solar has grown a lot in other places and US is catching up.

      Energy conversion devices with efficiency greater than 80% are also forbidden. Does that include fuel efficient cars also? Its a bit too much to believe, is there really such a law? If yes, the oil lobby has crossed all limits and they have ensured that the demand for oil will never drop in US.

      • Curbina

        Sanjeev, the US legislation is real, also the list of technologies affected by this legislation, and also the similar legislations in the other countries I mentioned, I have verified it from official online sources and also from press releases related to those legislative bodies. If you see the list of technologies affected by the Secrecy of Inventions Act, you can also see that MHD generators are listed.

        • Sanjeev

          Simply amazing.

      • Allan Shura

        So we are bombarded by messages to max out to achieve our potential but we are forced to produce and used only cripple ware.

  • Frechette

    It’s been done before in so far as the government clamping down on inventions. Case in point, Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil invented spread spectrum and frequency hopping communications in 1941. Today’s wireless communication systems are based on this invention. In 1941 this invention was deemed so vital to the national defense that the government would not allow any publication of the details.

    What else has been suppressed?

  • Sanjeev

    I do agree that there is no conspiracy of mega scale here, the downfall of scientific publishing can be easily explained by profit oriented mentality (what can sell more), social biases (what will people think) and lack of courage to publish new things (what if I lose my job/business).

    To be fair, there are a lot many crackpots trying to publish their stuff as it easily gets funding if it is published in a well know journal and the guidelines are there to prevent that misuse.

    But, I (and others) are not talking about that, thats all well understood, I’m pointing to the fact that even when the topic is relevant and quality of the paper is outstanding, it gets rejected. This is true in the case of cold fusion and other evolving branches of science, especially those where no research was done in past. So I guess the commentator misunderstood the point or is simply trying to cover up the matter with unrelated things like journal policies.

    Once the science high priests have declared CF as a pseudoscience, there is no way any respected journal will publish on that topic, even if the journal is on a specific topic of fusion or atomic sciences. Why? because the readers will unsubscribe promptly and the mainstream media will ruin their reputation. The cash cow will be dead. Although this may not happen but this is the fear that drives peers, editors and owners.

    I did not like the way he told georgehants to go and start his own journal. Is it wrong to point out the deficiencies of a system ? It seems like saying do not mess with me, go and do your own stuff if you do not like us. This list of discoveries that went un-noticed and caused delay in application due to the system of publishing is long indeed. If someone asks you to correct it, you do not simply tell them to go away.

    So the lesson is to self publish if you have made a breakthrough, do not beg at the doors of journals. They are a relic of pre-internet era. Some people are dragging that system because it still makes profits and offers a convenient way to control knowledge.

    “For Christ’s sake, Soddy, don’t call it transmutation. They’ll have our heads off as alchemists.” – Rutherford (when he and Soddy discovered that transmutation is real)

  • Sanjeev

    I do agree that there is no conspiracy of mega scale here, the downfall of scientific publishing can be easily explained by profit oriented mentality (what can sell more), social biases (what will people think) and lack of courage to publish new things (what if I lose my job/business).

    To be fair, there are a lot many crackpots trying to publish their stuff as it easily gets funding if it is published in a well know journal and the guidelines are there to prevent that misuse.

    But, I (and others) are not talking about that, thats all well understood, I’m pointing to the fact that even when the topic is relevant and quality of the paper is outstanding, it gets rejected. This is true in the case of cold fusion and other evolving branches of science, especially those where no research was done in past. So I guess the commentator misunderstood the point or is simply trying to cover up the matter with unrelated things like journal policies.

    Once the science high priests have declared CF as a pseudoscience, there is no way any respected journal will publish on that topic, even if the journal is on a specific topic of fusion or atomic sciences. Why? because the readers will unsubscribe promptly and the mainstream media will ruin their reputation. The cash cow will be dead. Although this may not happen but this is the fear that drives peers, editors and owners.

    I did not like the way he told georgehants to go and start his own journal. Is it wrong to point out the deficiencies of a system ? It seems like saying do not mess with me, go and do your own stuff if you do not like us. This list of discoveries that went un-noticed and caused delay in application due to the system of publishing is long indeed. If someone asks you to correct it, you do not simply tell them to go away.

    So the lesson is to self publish if you have made a breakthrough, do not beg at the doors of journals. They are a relic of pre-internet era. Some people are dragging that system because it still makes profits and offers a convenient way to control knowledge.

    “For Christ’s sake, Soddy, don’t call it transmutation. They’ll have our heads off as alchemists.” – Rutherford (when he and Soddy discovered that transmutation is real)

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    It’s a nicely tried defense of the current magazines but it’s also full of holes.

    “But since you asked, most journals have a clear mission statement that guides the editors and the reviewers as to what types of papers the journal wishes to publish.”

    I can guarantee you that as soon as a real cold fusion device is on sale, *all* those magazines will publish article after article about it, totally disregarding their “mission statement”. When there is a game changing technology they cannot afford to not publish about it. People will expect it from them and they in turn will need to publish about it if only to sell more magazines.

    “So Georgehants, I urge you to start your own journa…”

    That’s just a very cheap counter argument. I’m very critical of the current banking system. Thus your advice would be to start my own bank? It really sounds like a nonsense argument.

    Now to the real reasons: “There are two main reasons why articles get rejected by journals: topic and quality.”

    It seems clear that for the main science magazines there is a blanket on the topic of Cold Fusion or LENR. Peter Hagelstein in his recent class about CF at MIT warned immediately about the career dangers of becoming involved in CF. In the end when CF has it’s breakthrough, it will be thanks to an elite of old scientists who had the courage or the independence and willpower to continue against all opposition. CF in established science is still regarded as fringe science.

    So many in the field have published results, up to peer reviewed quality articles with duplicated test results resulting in over-unity, and still no publication in the big magazines. Jed Rothwell’s archives are full of excellent articles even from respected institutes. Quality is not the issue here.

    In general there are of course guidelines by which the science magazines select their publications. That’s just how every newspaper and magazine works. You don’t publish the latest lady shoe trend in a science magazine, nor the opposite of publishing a science article in a health and beauty magazine.

    In the case of CF, there is enough quality evidence to show something truly astonishing is happening. However the topic seems forbidden and that is where the real problem lies. No magazine dares to dig into the evidence and publish articles about it. Suppose Nature or Science magazine where to post about something as controversial as the CF phenomenon. Even though the evidence is excellent and could be defended very well, they would be slaughtered by the science establishment. I think they are too afraid to lose memberships and status, thus banning the topic from publishing. They are, in effect, cowards.

  • kdk

    So, would it be appropriate to trot out Schwinger’s treatment?

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes kdk.

      What did Julian Schwinger (the guy who shared the Nobel Prize with Feynman and Tomonaga for QED) have to say about cold fusion and peer review?

      ….After 1989 Schwinger took a keen interest in the non-mainstream research of cold fusion. He wrote eight theory papers about it. He resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers.[3] He felt that cold fusion research was being suppressed and academic freedom violated. He wrote: “The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.”…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Schwinger

      • Sanjeev

        It is a miracle …that para survived on wikipedia.

      • Curbina

        I had read that before but atributed to Feynman himself. Also in wikipedia, and later “poof” gone. Do you have a source for that important quote???

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Richard Feynman died on February 15, 1988, a year before F&P’s March 23 1989 announcement. So, it wasn’t him.

          • Curbina

            That’s what I found later, and always amazed me how the wikipedia page could have been so wrong when I read that Feynman had been interested in Cold Fusion there.

        • Gerrit

          Julian Schwinger also said “The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion.” ( in memory of Julian Schwinger http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0303078‎ )

          Cold fusion was dismissed by “the establishment” in 1989, because they hadn’t been able to replicate the effect in their own experiments. One of the main reasons for them to give up so quickly on the experiments was the fact that the observation claimed by Fleischmann-Pons simply didn’t fit established theory.
          The theory however was based on evidence from experiments of two body fusion in a vacuum or plasma, whereas the F-P experiment obviously was not like that at all. But mainstream physics assumed that these differences in environment do not play a role and therefore the theory is applicable and thus the observation must be wrong.

          Observation trumps theory, but in the case of cold fusion a non applicable theory was used to dismiss observation.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    It’s a nicely tried defense of the current magazines but it’s also full of holes.

    “But since you asked, most journals have a clear mission statement that guides the editors and the reviewers as to what types of papers the journal wishes to publish.”

    I can guarantee you that as soon as a real cold fusion device is on sale, *all* those magazines will publish article after article about it, totally disregarding their “mission statement”. When there is a game changing technology they cannot afford to not publish about it. People will expect it from them and they in turn will need to publish about it if only to sell more magazines.

    “So Georgehants, I urge you to start your own journa…”

    That’s just a very cheap counter argument. I’m very critical of the current banking system. Thus your advice would be to start my own bank? It really sounds like a nonsense argument.

    Now to the real reasons: “There are two main reasons why articles get rejected by journals: topic and quality.”

    It seems clear that for the main science magazines there is a blanket on the topic of Cold Fusion or LENR. Peter Hagelstein in his recent class about CF at MIT warned immediately about the career dangers of becoming involved in CF. In the end when CF has it’s breakthrough, it will be thanks to an elite of old scientists who had the courage or the independence and willpower to continue against all opposition. CF in established science is still regarded as fringe science.

    So many in the field have published results, up to peer reviewed quality articles with duplicated test results resulting in over-unity, and still no publication in the big magazines. Jed Rothwell’s archives are full of excellent articles even from respected institutes. Quality is not the issue here.

    In general there are of course guidelines by which the science magazines select their publications. That’s just how every newspaper and magazine works. You don’t publish the latest lady shoe trend in a science magazine, nor the opposite of publishing a science article in a health and beauty magazine.

    In the case of CF, there is enough quality evidence to show something truly astonishing is happening. However the topic seems forbidden and that is where the real problem lies. No magazine dares to dig into the evidence and publish articles about it. Suppose Nature or Science magazine where to post about something as controversial as the CF phenomenon. Even though the evidence is excellent and could be defended very well, they would be slaughtered by the science establishment. I think they are too afraid to lose memberships and status, thus banning the topic from publishing. They are, in effect, cowards.

  • kdk

    So, would it be appropriate to trot out Schwinger’s treatment? Because he definitely thought he had an explanation for why the tests had failed, but they were rejected anyway. At that time, it was hard to find a more prestigious writer of a paper, was it not?

    • GreenWin

      Yes. And another physics Nobel laureate who curiously dropped out of a government CF study confirming fusion products. Carlo Rubia then President of ENEA mysteriously “disappeared” after the 1999-2002 cold fusion experiments confirmed He4 in P&F electrolytic cells. The laughable part is the study was rejected by 41 “science journals.” It’s all told with humor and drama in this RAI NEWS24 video: youtube [dot] com/watch?v=bujrxqwRwc0

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes kdk.

      What did Julian Schwinger (the guy who shared the Nobel Prize with Feynman and Tomonaga for QED) have to say about cold fusion and peer review?

      ….After 1989 Schwinger took a keen interest in the non-mainstream research of cold fusion. He wrote eight theory papers about it. He resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers.[3] He felt that cold fusion research was being suppressed and academic freedom violated. He wrote: “The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.”…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Schwinger

      • Sanjeev

        It is a miracle …that para survived on wikipedia.

      • Curbina

        I had read that before but atributed to Feynman himself. Also in wikipedia, and later “poof” gone. Do you have a source for that important quote???

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Richard Feynman died on February 15, 1988, a year before F&P’s March 23 1989 announcement. So, it wasn’t him.

          • Curbina

            That’s what I found later, and always amazed me how the wikipedia page could have been so wrong when I read that Feynman had been interested in Cold Fusion there.

        • tucu
          • Curbina

            Thanks Tucu!

        • Gerrit

          Julian Schwinger also said “The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion.” ( in memory of Julian Schwinger http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0303078‎ )

          Cold fusion was dismissed by “the establishment” in 1989, because they hadn’t been able to replicate the effect in their own experiments. One of the main reasons for them to give up so quickly on the experiments was the fact that the observation claimed by Fleischmann-Pons simply didn’t fit established theory.
          The theory however was based on evidence from experiments of two body fusion in a vacuum or plasma, whereas the F-P experiment obviously was not like that at all. But mainstream physics assumed that these differences in environment do not play a role and therefore the theory is applicable and thus the observation must be wrong.

          Observation trumps theory, but in the case of cold fusion a non applicable theory was used to dismiss observation.

  • Sanjeev

    Of course GreenWin, I assume that if you show this video to the mainstream reporters and skeptics, they are still going to repeat their standard phrase – “F&P was never successfully replicated” with their fingers firmly lodged in their ears.

  • Sandy

    I believe that there have been deliberate efforts to suppress scientific reports about nuclear fusion experiments. The following paragraphs are about one instance of such suppression, and I could cite other examples.

    The recently published Volume 12 December 2013 Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science has an article detailing censorship by science journals.

    “How the Flawed Journal Review Process Impedes Paradigm Shifting Discoveries” by P.A. Mosier-Boss, L.P. Forsley, and F.E. Gordon describes the experience of these researchers as they submitted papers describing their low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR ) experiments to mainstream science journals.

    From the Abstract:

    The purpose of scientific journals is to review papers for scientific validity and to disseminate new theoretical and experimental results. This requires that the editors and reviewers be impartial. Our attempt to publish novel experimental results in a renowned physics journal shows that in some cases editors and reviewers are not impartial; they are biased and closed-minded. Although our subject matter was technical, its rejection was not: it was emotionally charged. It was an agenda-laden rejection of legitimate experiments that were conducted in US DoD and DoE laboratories. This paper describes the flawed journal review process, detailing our own case and citing others. Such behavior on the part of editors and reviewers has a stifling effect on innovation and the diffusion of knowledge.
    © 2013 ISCMNS. All rights reserved. ISSN 2227-3123

    Published by Cold Fusion Now at http://coldfusionnow.org/science-journal-rejections-suppress-clean-energy-research/

    • GreenWin

      Sandy, the benefit of Frank publishing this thread is to see the hard-to-deny evidence of overt suppression of LENR/CF experimental data. The challenge is to counter those who would slough this off as “inconsequential.” It is not. Suppression, sequestering of knowledge that uplifts and enlightens a species – is the epitome of greed at least – criminal at worst.

  • guga

    I think Kat is right.

    Papers of mine have been rejected too. That just happens in the system of peer review. There are sooo many journals today, sooo many editors and even many more reviewers. If you have valid data you will eventually get it published.

    Peer review has many drawbacks. That is indeed well known in the scientific community and there are discussions going on about it. But on the other hand, I have not yet heard of a convincing alternative.

  • guga

    I think Kat is right.

    Papers of mine have been rejected too. That just happens in the system of peer review. There are sooo many journals today, sooo many editors and even many more reviewers. If you have valid data you will eventually get it published.

    Peer review has many drawbacks. That is indeed well known in the scientific community and there are discussions going on about it. But on the other hand, I have not yet heard of a convincing alternative.

    • GreenWin

      Simply not true. Watch this RAI NEWS24 story on the infamous “Report 41” done in part by Nobel physicist Carlo Rubia. youtube[dot]com/watch?v=bujrxqwRwc0 It’s… shocking!! @5:27pm EST NOTE: first two comments deleted by Admin

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    You have a point regarding human nature and the ordinary audience.

    However, science journals and magazines should not be mandated by human emotions but by independent scientific review. That is simply not happening within the current system.

  • The long term Hot Cat test should be submitted to SCIENCE. The fact that the test is still going on shows that the Hot Cat is still producing excess energy. If it had stopped working, they would have ended the test.

  • Alain Samoun

    Thanks GreenWin,as always a good link. I knew about the DeNino report but never read about Uranium being able to “absorb” Deuterium like Palladium, therefore I google the subject and found this interesting Chinese article:
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Fconferences%2F2012%2FICCF17%2Fpapers%2FJiang-Neutron-Burst-Emissions-ICCF17-ps.pdf&ei=sbv-UqqLGpPsoATdmoCwBQ&usg=AFQjCNEQ7LheCkq44n6hfvRkh7kYRLK00Q&sig2=-1ee_XMgYsG7H2PJ3EnnoA&bvm=bv.61535280,d.cGU
    They have detected bursts of neutrons in U and Ti loaded with Deuterium showing then LENR effects in these systems.
    Note that the China Institute of Atomic Energy doesn’t reject communications/articles about LENR…

  • Allan Shura

    The lack peer review for cold fusion has been a major argument against acceptance and I have been rebutted on this point. I am not an expert on peer review journals though thy seem to me to be in the category of a scientific trade
    journal. The question is then if they are biased toward a particular view by not publishing convincing articles of
    research to the contrary if such exists in a given field of research. We know the press and educational programs
    are not balanced in many cases. The more inclusive of relevant facts and fair a reporting publication is the greater credibility it has. It is obvious that coverage of what has happened and is important in the Olympics is different in every country.

  • Allan Shura

    The lack peer review for cold fusion has been a major argument against acceptance and I have been rebutted on this point. I am not an expert on peer review journals though thy seem to me to be in the category of a scientific trade
    journal. The question is then if they are biased toward a particular view by not publishing convincing articles of
    research to the contrary if such exists in a given field of research. We know the press and educational programs
    are not balanced in many cases. The more inclusive of relevant facts and fair a reporting publication is the greater credibility it has. It is obvious that coverage of what has happened and is important in the Olympics is different in every country.

  • Gerrit

    Let me make one thing clear:

    There are plenty of peer reviewed papers on cold fusion/LENR in mainstream scientific journals.

    As Kat correctly notices “most journals have a clear mission statement that guides the editors and the reviewers as to what types of papers the journal wishes to publish. This is because they wish to become THE journal in a particular topic and hence have a good reputation and a long subscriber list.”

    The mission statement of the top tier journals clearly is: “we do not publish cold fusion papers, because we wish to have a good reputation and a long subscriber list and cold fusion is so thoroughly debunked that we better not touch it”

    The reason that Nature doesn’t publish articles on cold fusion is because John Maddox, then editor of Nature, declared “Cold Fusion is dead” in 1990. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Jp9L_6-BI )

    That is how top tier peer review completely failed to work for cold fusion. The editor simply declared it’s dead, we do not accept cold fusion papers, we will not send them for peer review and we will never publish this rubbish !

    • GreenWin

      “Closed scientific journals are dead.” Mark these words. 🙂

  • Gerrit

    Let me make one thing clear:

    There are plenty of peer reviewed papers on cold fusion/LENR in mainstream scientific journals.

    As Kat correctly notices “most journals have a clear mission statement that guides the editors and the reviewers as to what types of papers the journal wishes to publish. This is because they wish to become THE journal in a particular topic and hence have a good reputation and a long subscriber list.”

    The mission statement of the top tier journals clearly is: “we do not publish cold fusion papers, because we wish to have a good reputation and a long subscriber list and cold fusion is so thoroughly debunked that we better not touch it”

    The reason that Nature doesn’t publish articles on cold fusion is because John Maddox, then editor of Nature, declared “Cold Fusion is dead” in 1990. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Jp9L_6-BI )

    That is how top tier peer review completely failed to work for cold fusion. The editor simply declared it’s dead, we do not accept cold fusion papers, we will not send them for peer review and we will never publish this rubbish !

    • bachcole

      And this is how these publications will fall down and go boom.

    • GreenWin

      “Closed scientific journals are dead.” Mark these words. 🙂

  • Curbina

    Thanks Tucu!

  • Alain Samoun

    Yes GreenWin, I had put this comment about a Chinese experiment with Uranium and Titanium loaded with Deuterium showing bursts of Neutrons, this at room temperature. A very good proof that LENR happens with different metals and that the Chinese scientists work on the phenomena without fear to be single out, like in Occident.
    Link:
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Fconferences%2F2012%2FICCF17%2Fpapers%2FJiang-Neutron-Burst-Emissions-ICCF17-ps.pdf&ei=sbv-UqqLGpPsoATdmoCwBQ&usg=AFQjCNEQ7LheCkq44n6hfvRkh7kYRLK00Q&sig2=-1ee_XMgYsG7H2PJ3EnnoA&cad=rja

    • GreenWin

      Very interesting. They reference Mosier-Boss, Gordon, Y E Kim, E Storms, all pioneers in LENR. Not surprising that U235 would load and radiate higher neutron levels than titanium. But I think it was powdered titanium that the Italian Prof Abundo experiments used.

      • Alain Samoun

        No, they use (238U) , It could be a little bit dangerous to use (235U) with random neutrons bursts 😉

        • GreenWin

          Thanks for the correction Alain! I had heard that mil has investigated loading depleted U238? to achieve a “big bang” in the field. Probably an unfounded rumor. Like LENR is pseudoscience.

  • GreenWin

    Sandy, the benefit of Frank publishing this thread is to see the hard-to-deny evidence of overt suppression of LENR/CF experimental data. The challenge is to counter those who would slough this off as “inconsequential.” It is not. Suppression, sequestering of knowledge that uplifts and enlightens a species – is the epitome of greed at least – criminal at worst.

  • georgehants

    Thank you, but you do not understand , it is not at all the delay but the reasons for the delay.
    The lack of news just shows how much more work must be done against the “conspiracy” of science and especially the journals etc. to put the situation right.
    That is what I am tired of, battling with people with no spiritual feeling for every individual and humanity as a whole just blind self-importance and misplaced pride.
    Time for more of the young to wake-up, clear their heads and start to change things, instead of excepting the status quo and only having one question —- Am I o.k. Jack.
    Regarding Cold Fusion etc. as always the TRUTH will come out in it’s own time and I can wait.

  • BroKeeper

    Agreed Roger, however the greater the imbalance between the loophole affluent and the struggling middle class allocates less tax base to support those regulations. LENR is the only current effective mechanism to bring back economical equilibrium and eventually redefinition and reinforcement of those regulations.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Why LENR experimental evidence does not trump existing theory? Too much money (power) involved.

    • bachcole

      Different people’s minds work differently. Since LENR experimental evidence goes against a theory that destroyed two cities and powers many more, the evidence must be wrong. And then there is the money.

  • David

    Has anyone ever read Asimov’s story, ‘ The Billiard Ball’?
    The problem is that mainstream science, including the journals has already accepted the theory, not proof but theory, that LENR is pseudo-science. Therefore, they will reject any observational evidence regardless of how robust. In Rossi’s case, they are willing to postulate any number of scenarios regardless of how unlikely and whatever the credentials of any observer simply because to accept even the possibility of truth would mean that their Theory of LENR Impossibility is wrong. As that theory is widely accepted, no Journal will risk its quest to be Number One on the issue. This would be understandable I suppose if we were talking about something with such little relative importance to society as a fundamental change in how cosmology is perceived (Dark Energy and Dark Matter) but it is incredibly irresponsible and short sighted considering the worlds need for a clean energy source. Should LENR be proven, and I think it will, Science will no doubt attempt to embrace it as something totally separate from F&P. They will hand a Nobel Prize to one of their own, but those of us who watch will know the utter depth of their failure. Science has scored this unforgivably and it is now up to the Engineers to make it work.

  • David

    Has anyone ever read Asimov’s story, ‘ The Billiard Ball’?
    The problem is that mainstream science, including the journals has already accepted the theory, not proof but theory, that LENR is pseudo-science. Therefore, they will reject any observational evidence regardless of how robust. In Rossi’s case, they are willing to postulate any number of scenarios regardless of how unlikely and whatever the credentials of any observer simply because to accept even the possibility of truth would mean that their Theory of LENR Impossibility is wrong. As that theory is widely accepted, no Journal will risk its quest to be Number One on the issue. This would be understandable I suppose if we were talking about something with such little relative importance to society as a fundamental change in how cosmology is perceived (Dark Energy and Dark Matter) but it is incredibly irresponsible and short sighted considering the worlds need for a clean energy source. Should LENR be proven, and I think it will, Science will no doubt attempt to embrace it as something totally separate from F&P. They will hand a Nobel Prize to one of their own, but those of us who watch will know the utter depth of their failure. Science has scored this unforgivably and it is now up to the Engineers to make it work.

    • bachcole

      And it is up to us to let everyone know NOW that LENR is real so that when it becomes obvious to everyone that LENR is real they will remember our pestering them and will realize that the science establishment’s efforts to shield itself from criticism is part of their evil behavior.