UK Charity Nesta Hits Problems Trying to Cover LENR as a Hot Topic

Thanks to Dr. Bob for sharing a link to an article on the UK organization Nesta’s web sit. Nesta was formed as a government agency (National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts), but in 2010 was reorganized as a public charity which specializes in funding innovation projects.

In a blog posting, Technology Futures intern Chrysostomos Meli covers the field of LENR/Cold fusion and focuses more on the sociological, rather than the scientific aspects of the field. He begins:

“My first assignment at Nesta was to find an interesting subject for a Hot Topic Event. Going through a few suggestions I came across a grant request to fund research into cold fusion reactors. Little did I know it would expose me to a side of science I didn’t think existed.”

A Nesta Hot Topic event is a meeting where informed persons from media, business, academia, etc., are brought together to discuss innovative technological developments that may have an impact on society going forward. Meli describes his surprise at the responses he received in trying to get people to participate in a Hot Topic event surrounding LENR.

When inviting physicists, I found that they were more inclined to fill their responses with data and evidence that disproves LENR claims. LENR supporters were extremely pleased as they considered the fact that we wanted to hold this event a sign of LENR breaking into the mainstream. Both of these responses ignore the fact that all we wanted to talk about was the emotional effects of the technology and not get caught up on the debate of whether it’s good research or not.

He explains that a number of people who he contacted inviting them to participate in an event were reluctant to get involved — as if just talking about cold fusion would taint them with a stigma that could affect their careers. So apparently there will be no Hot Topic about LENR at Nesta for the time being.

This is not a new phenomenon to many people who have become involved in LENR over the years, and I think it is still an ongoing issue that prevents many of the developments that we discuss here at length from being mentioned in polite society. Many of us hope that things will change — perhaps after the E-Cat report is published, and the 1 MW plant is publicly unveiled — and the taboo surrounding this topic will finally be lifted and we can get on with normal discussion.

  • georgehants

    Perhaps I could make a point that explains many of the problems above and many others regarding the incompetence of science.
    If one takes the serious subject in science of the existence of Fairies and takes a purely Logical and scientific approach, as should happen in all cases then ——-
    There is a great deal of Evidence, be it mainly subjective, for the positive psychological or actual existence of Fairies.
    There is absolutely Zero Evidence for there non-existence.
    From a scientific point of view anybody that in anyway states that Fairies do not exist is clearly scientifically incompetent.
    As my above is indisputable from a scientific or Logical point of view I will not answer any of the replys trying to dispute my above with abuse or “opinion”.

    • robyn wyrick

      That’s hilarious.

      • georgehants

        robyn, the point is, is it True or will you not commit?

        • psi

          George, I think this was the hilarious part:

          “There is absolutely Zero Evidence for there non-existence.”

          • georgehants

            JDM, you seem to have developed the scientists paralysis when faced with a clear question —-
            Do you logically or scientifically agree or disagree with my Facts?

          • JDM

            And if you have developed a paralysis of inability to define your subject matter then you have no facts worthy of discussion. And since you give no evidence against that paralysis you cannot prove that it does not exist.
            And round and round we go….

          • georgehants

            JDM, as usual you have just again I think, proved why science has fallen so low in ordinary peoples estimation.
            I will ask you one final time —-
            Do you agree or disagree with my above comment based on Logic or scientific principles?
            If one cannot prove that it does not exist then clearly my comment is correct and all denials are just worthless “opinion” do you agree?

          • Ted-X

            George,
            You are perfectly right. The basic logic of science says that: NO THEORY CAN BE PROVEN CORRECT. THEORIES CAN ONLY BE PROVED WRONG (IF THEY ARE INDEED WRONG).
            It means that we should continually question our “accepted” theories.
            Example: All people have only one head. Proven wrong: there was a case in China when a person started to grow a second head, which was then surgically removed.

          • Achi

            Well said. This goes back to my statement “Nothing is true. Anything is possible.” We can not blindly accept things as truth. Truth only closes the mind to possibilities.

          • Ted-X

            Achi,
            So, we are living with a set of theories which were not disproved yet and perhaps we could subjectively rank them, that’s all. Even the disproved theories should be still kept for considerations, because some could have been wrongly rejected (there are many cases of that in the history of science and technology…. and still, there will be more cases of identified wrong rejections). The listing of various “effects” which do not fit into the official science is several pages long, at the rate of one effect per line.

          • Achi

            Exactly. We may have thought that something as simple as the world being flat to be an indisputable truth, but now we know it is not. We now think that we know that the world is spherical, but is it? Have we limited what we can perceive with an undisputed truth? Is there an entire dimension that we haven’t discovered that paints a better picture?

          • Job001

            The “world is flat” for local observers with limited data. With more data the “world is flat” accepted theory became falsified and required revision.

          • bachcole

            For hundreds of millions of people around the world, the “world is flat” theory still works just fine. They also experience the Sun rising in the East and setting in the West, NOT the Earth spinning on it’s axis. It is all about perspective. I am that way almost all of the time. I often switch perspective, particularly when I am trying to figure out what time it is in a different time zone or am envisioning how cool GPS is.

          • Job001

            Agree, it isn’t about “Truth”, it’s about correlation, R^2 to be specific. “Truth” depends upon assumption. Kurt proved assumptions inevitably fail;

            Proof; Einsteins friend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel Gödel mathematically proved in 1931 that all assumptions taken too far result in paradox, fallacy, incompleteness, or undecidability, however you wish to describe it.

            I try to keep Kurt’s proof in mind for different perspectives, especially the fallibility of general knowledge and logic.

          • Broncobet

            Scientists are held to low opinion on this site,but the rest of the people on the planet,or the great majority of them, esteem them highly.

          • georgehants

            Broncobet, your comment is inflammatory and completely untrue.
            Fair criticism is being aimed at the parts of science that have been clearly proven to be corrupt and incompetent regarding Cold Fusion etc.
            Do you not agree that such failings should and must be corrected?

          • Broncobet

            Of course not

    • JDM

      Define “Faries” please. At least then we can agree on exactly what we are discussing.

      • georgehants

        JDM,
        Nothing to do with philosophy, just the old boring Faries or if you like UFO’s, Goblins, Dragons, Etc. Etc.

        • JDM

          fair·y
          ˈfe(ə)rē/
          noun
          plural noun: fairies
          1.
          a small imaginary being of human form that has magical powers, especially a female one.

          “Imaginary” in the definition make it disputable from a logical point of view, eh?

          • georgehants

            Give me please the Evidence for it being “imaginary” and even if it is it exists within the Psyche so needs investigation of the mind, do you not think.

    • Charles

      What are Faires? Are they the same thing as Fairies? I know several Fairies but it is improper to call them that any more. I don’t want to discuss them because of fear of the Gaystapo which is another term that should not be used because it can be proved logically that there is no such thing as a Gaystapo..

      “There is absolutely Zero Evidence for there non-existence.”
      What is the “there” regarding non-existence. You do know there is a famous quote saying: “there is no there there” so we really have nothing to discuss since there is no there there..
      We could discuss: “There is absolutely Zero Evidence for “their” non-existence, their being Fairies. Help me out here George.

  • georgehants

    Perhaps I could make a point that explains many of the problems above and many others regarding the incompetence of science.
    If one takes the serious subject in science of the existence of Faries and takes a purely Logical and scientific approach, as should happen in all cases then ——-
    There is a great deal of Evidence, be it mainly subjective, for the positive psychological or actual existence of Faries.
    There is absolutely Zero Evidence for there non-existence.
    From a scientific point of view anybody that in anyway states that Fairies do not exist is clearly scientifically incompetent.
    “Opinion” even with a consensus has no place in science except as a last desperate recourse when the clear Evidence is not available.
    As my above is indisputable from a scientific or Logical point of view I will not answer any of the reply’s trying to dispute my above with abuse or “opinion”.

    • robyn wyrick

      That’s hilarious.

      • georgehants

        robyn, the point is, is it True or will you not commit to the Truth?

        • psi

          George, I think this was the hilarious part:

          “There is absolutely Zero Evidence for there non-existence.”

          • georgehants

            JDM, you seem to have developed the scientists paralysis when faced with a clear question —-
            Do you logically or scientifically agree or disagree with my Facts?

          • JDM

            And if you have developed a paralysis of inability to define your subject matter then you have no facts worthy of discussion. And since you give no evidence against that paralysis you cannot prove that it does not exist.
            And round and round we go….

          • georgehants

            JDM, as usual you have just again I think, proved why science has fallen so low in ordinary peoples estimation.
            I will ask you one final time —-
            Do you agree or disagree with my above comment based on Logic or scientific principles?
            If one cannot prove that it does not exist then clearly my comment is correct and all denials are just worthless “opinion” do you agree?

          • Ted-X

            George,
            You are perfectly right. The basic logic of science says that: NO THEORY CAN BE PROVEN CORRECT. THEORIES CAN ONLY BE PROVED WRONG (IF THEY ARE INDEED WRONG).
            It means that we should continually question our “accepted” theories.
            Example: All people have only one head. Proven wrong: there was a case in China when a person started to grow a second head, which was then surgically removed.

          • Achi

            Well said. This goes back to my statement “Nothing is true. Anything is possible.” We can not blindly accept things as truth. Truth only closes the mind to possibilities.

          • Ted-X

            Achi,
            So, we are living with a set of theories which were not disproved yet and perhaps we could subjectively rank them, that’s all. Even the disproved theories should be still kept for considerations, because some could have been wrongly rejected (there are many cases of that in the history of science and technology…. and still, there will be more cases of identified wrong rejections). The listing of various “effects” which do not fit into the official science is several pages long, at the rate of one effect per line.

          • Achi

            Exactly. We may have thought that something as simple as the world being flat to be an indisputable truth, but now we know it is not. We now think that we know that the world is spherical, but is it? Have we limited what we can perceive with an undisputed truth? Is there an entire dimension that we haven’t discovered that paints a better picture?

          • Job001

            The “world is flat” for local observers with limited data. With more data the “world is flat” accepted theory became falsified and required revision.

          • bachcole

            For hundreds of millions of people around the world, the “world is flat” theory still works just fine. They also experience the Sun rising in the East and setting in the West, NOT the Earth spinning on it’s axis. It is all about perspective. I am that way almost all of the time. I often switch perspective, particularly when I am trying to figure out what time it is in a different time zone or am envisioning how cool GPS is.

          • Job001

            Agree, it isn’t about “Truth”, it’s about correlation, R^2 to be specific. “Truth” depends upon poor assumption logic. Kurt proved assumptions/logic/knowledge inevitably fail;

            Proof; Einsteins friend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Gödel Gödel mathematically proved in 1931 that all assumptions taken too far result in paradox, fallacy, incompleteness, or undecidability, however you wish to describe it.

            I try to keep Kurt’s proof in mind for different perspectives, especially the fallibility of general knowledge and logic.

          • bachcole

            I do not expect to find nor do I seek Truth in the external physical world nor even with the mind. The mind separates everything into the subjective and the objective, two perspectives. After that, everything gets even more fractured; he said, she said; different viewpoints etc. I see just different viewpoints and what works. Did you wake up this morning and say, “the Sun has risen”? Or did you wake up this morning and say, “the Earth has spin far enough so that I can now see the Sun’s rays.”?

          • georgehants

            Job001, bachcole, although you are of course both right in your points, one must never confuse the simple everyday World that we inhabit with the philosophical and deep.
            Is it the TRUTH that Cold Fusion and many other important subjects have been corrupted and delayed by a twisting of the everyday meaning of the Truth.
            Both your points are important, but out of place when discussing the problems of society etc. that needs firm ground to operate in any rational way.

          • Job001

            We agree it’s the TRUTH that corruption and common biases(funding, hubris, ego, etc) played the game. TRUTH however for a true scientist is but a correlated theory subject to change according to observed data.

            That’s the point, for those who refuse to see(observe) the data …….Ignorance reigns!

          • Achi

            Perceptiveness and the a ability to think intuitively is what separates the great scientists and inventors that forge new paths of thought, with the run of the mill scientists and innovators. To take preconceived notions of how thing are and ignore them is how you get labeled as fringe science. No one wants to take that step, but it is the only way progress is made.

          • Broncobet

            Scientists are held to low opinion on this site,but the rest of the people on the planet,or the great majority of them, esteem them highly.

          • georgehants

            Broncobet, your comment is inflammatory and completely untrue.
            Fair criticism is being aimed at the parts of science that have been clearly proven to be corrupt and incompetent regarding Cold Fusion etc.
            Do you not agree that such failings should and must be corrected?

          • Broncobet

            Of course not

    • JDM

      Define “Faries” please. At least then we can agree on exactly what we are discussing.

      • georgehants

        JDM,
        Nothing to do with philosophy, just the old boring Faries or if you like UFO’s, Goblins, Dragons, Etc. Etc.

        • JDM

          fair·y
          ˈfe(ə)rē/
          noun
          plural noun: fairies
          1.
          a small imaginary being of human form that has magical powers, especially a female one.

          “Imaginary” in the definition make it disputable from a logical point of view, eh?

          • georgehants

            Give me please the Evidence for it being “imaginary” and even if it is, it exists within the Psyche so needs competent investigation of the mind, do you not think.

    • Garry

      “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

      For the National Institutes of Health, where my lab gets most of its grant funding, it is a well known fact that you you must already have preliminary data that shows you have already completed the project for the 5 year grant you propose (up to a million dollars spread over 5 years for an “RO1” level grant). In other words, you must have already COMPLETED the project before they will fund you to do the “novel” research you “propose” in the project.

      Even then you are lucky if there’s not some mindless idiot who drivels on that what you showed (in the preliminary data supporting the grant) is impossible and then fights in committee against your grant. And we are not even talking about controversial subjects …

      But goddess help you if you use money from ANOTHER grant to pay for aforesaid preliminary data. That’s considered an audit-able “crime”.

      Welcome to the incrementalists and cowards who govern our lauded science system.

  • Observer

    “Kids were turned into unicorns and sold to the circus.”

    At first glance this statement sounds like complete fantasy, yet it is factually true:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-10-18/entertainment/8503110287_1_lancelot-ringling-brothers-animal

    http://www.google.com/patents/US4429685

  • Observer

    “Kids were turned into unicorns and sold to the circus.”

    At first glance this statement sounds like complete fantasy, yet it is factually true:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-10-18/entertainment/8503110287_1_lancelot-ringling-brothers-animal

    http://www.google.com/patents/US4429685

    • Broncobet

      TY Very interesting, maybe in the past people did the same thing, so we can say that unicorns are real.

  • robyn wyrick

    Talk about a Hot Topic. This is a Too Hot Topic.

    From above: “A number of people who he contacted … were reluctant to get involved — as if just talking about cold
    fusion would taint them with a stigma that could affect their careers.”

    Even if you think a belief is wrong (for instance, a belief in the virgin birth of the Egyptian god Horus), that doesn’t make it wrong to discuss it.

    Interestingly, I bet you could find more physicists to publicly discuss virgin births than cold fusion.

  • robyn wyrick

    Talk about a Hot Topic. This is a Too Hot Topic.

    From above: “A number of people who he contacted … were reluctant to get involved — as if just talking about cold
    fusion would taint them with a stigma that could affect their careers.”

    Even if you think a belief is wrong (for instance, a belief in the virgin birth of the Egyptian god Horus), that doesn’t make it wrong to discuss it.

    Interestingly, I bet you could find more physicists to publicly discuss virgin births than cold fusion.

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    Hopefully there will be at least one big corporation that will try to profit from LENR, throwing a product to the market.
    Once the door is open, evidence is likely to pile in and systems might diversify. Then, mainstream science (and journalism) might be less fainthearted in following its ethical mandate. Pecunia non olet. Today it still takes guts for a scientist to commit to LENR.

    • georgehants

      “Pecunia non olet” money does not stink, just the corrupt people that manipulate it to their own greedy ends, at the cost to the many suffering with very little.

      • Charles

        Departing the gold standard and inventing Pertrodollars to replace it was sheer genius on the part of Nixon/Kissinger. It has permitted to hang on to whatever gold we had and let us get oil for debt for 40 years. Does that money smell like oil? Does that ruin Pecunia non olet?

        • Broncobet

          Since getting off the gold standard and using the power of the federal reserve to create money,both the wealth of the USA and the world have increased far more that any time 9in history. (it is probable that you and I would agree on political matters,but not this one).

      • georgehants

        Andy, many thanks, you may wish to look into the fairly new science of Epigenetics etc.

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    Hopefully there will be at least one big corporation that will try to profit from LENR, throwing a product to the market.
    Once the door is open, evidence is likely to pile in and systems might diversify. Then, mainstream science (and journalism) might be less fainthearted in following its ethical mandate. Pecunia non olet. Today it still takes guts for a scientist to commit to LENR.

    • georgehants

      “Pecunia non olet” money does not stink, just the corrupt people that manipulate it to their own greedy ends, at the cost to the many suffering with very little.

      • Charles

        Departing the gold standard and inventing Pertrodollars to replace it was sheer genius on the part of Nixon/Kissinger. It has permitted to hang on to whatever gold we had and let us get oil for debt for 40 years. Does that money smell like oil? Does that ruin Pecunia non olet?

        • Broncobet

          Since getting off the gold standard and using the power of the federal reserve to create money,both the wealth of the USA and the world have increased far more than any time in history. (it is probable that you and I would agree on political matters,but not this one).

  • Gerrit

    “I wanted to hold an event on the scientific community’s aversion towards cold fusion”

    “their unwillingness to even be associated with such as an event was apparent.”

    We cannot thank Chrysostomos Meli enough for sharing this in his blog. It beautifully sums up the attitude of mainstream science towards cold fusion in June 2014.

    • GreenWin

      That Nesta wanted only to discuss the “emotional effects of the technology” and still got stonewalled indicated the near pathological terror instilled in mainstream science. It would be sad were it not so funny!! http://bit.ly/1nPeGuB

      • bachcole

        It is astonishing how cowardly scientists are. Part of the problem is that they ALL engage in castigating anyone who disagrees with them. So they know that they themselves could be the next target.

        • it is a recent phenomenon.
          first science is more centralized in reality, because peopple follows leader … why ? because they decide of funding, of peer-review or prize…
          before there was countries, schools, universities, with each having their crazy fringe local ideas… mostly bad, some good..

          second scientist are more and more numerous and single-profession.
          if a modern scientist, a postgraduate, is blacklisted as fringe, he lose all his life… his funding, his citation index, his publication rate, his prize expectations…

          Nassim Nicholas Taleb talk of the “barbel” strategy, to have a safe job/investment (civil servant, bonds, real-estate, boring company, family money)and beside that a crazy risky investment/job (fringe research, cutting edge invention, risk capital)….
          the idea is to avoid the mild risk job or investment, because the gain is mostly overestimated and the risk underestimated…

          Lavoisier was a “fermier general” (tax officer), Eisnteing was a patent officer, Edison was a telegraphist, Rossi was… in jail… Fleischmann was retired, …

          this is why really disruptive ideas in science today are done by retired researchers, bloggers, ….

          the error for scientist is not to give them a real job. 😉
          the danger is that they absolutely want to keep it, best way to mediocrity and lemmings effect.

          • Broncobet

            Funny but true.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          I am sorry but my “scientist” friends are not cowards and are open to the possibility that LENR exists. They are busy people, waiting for “reputable scientific journals to publish.” I think we should focus our ire towards the editors of those journals.

          • Broncobet

            Good for you. I came here as a skeptic but the evidence is slowly changing my mind,partly because of what AlainCo calls the “groupthink effect” but also from additional facts. But the castigating of mainstream media, main stream science, should stop if you,and I mean all of you, are capable of that. This is the manifestation of “group think” and is just evil,even though you all think of yourselves as good. This is exactly the mechanism by which six million Jews and five million others ,were murdered by the Germans, who are not by nature evil. The evil comes from group think and can strike when conditions are right.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Broncobet….I agree!

          • Broncobet

            My post below was meant to laud you, for a brave stand on this venue.You are a brave person to stand up to the “group think” here.In the wars of old the first man through gap in the wall was usually killed. You made it safer for me.

  • bachcole

    I think that the truth about LENR will dawn on society gradually.

    • georgehants

      The above is not talking about “society” but the people who’s job and profession it is to immediately investigate such a phenomenon.
      It is, I think, not for them to be afraid to do their work and resort by decree of their priests, to deny and debunk, because they do not have the will to face the TRUTH.

      • bachcole

        If this is the only case, then why are we waiting for commercialization. Waiting for commercialization means that NO academic or scientist needs to be involved. I have already accepted and even embraced the fact that almost no academic or scientist will be involved. I embrace it knowing that they will be crushed by the Juggernaut and they will pay for their stupidity and cowardice and a new day will dawn for science and academia.

        • georgehants

          Agreed but if science 25 years ago had handled Cold Fusion competently then perhaps today with their encouragement and blessing, commerce would have cat’s on supermarket shelves.

          • Robert Ellefson

            Busy or not, nothing is more important to the future of human life on earth than a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Billions, not millions, of lives will be changed, eventually for the better, once this technology is deployed widely. This is not just another scientific topic to be considered on par with whatever other matters fill a typical scientist’s calendar, and that is why we should all turn up the volume as loudly as possible until They all start paying proper attention. This issue is far too important to be polite to the willfully-ignorant fools who are defending the status quo which is currently maiming our planet and killing our fellow citizens too rapidly for civility-as-usual.

          • Broncobet

            ” Nothing is more important ” Not if a huge asteroid or comet is about to hit us or an attack by our ancient friends and enemies the microbes.Should I assume you subscribe to the AGW camp as I do? That would elevate the importance of LENR,I do agree with you on this point. However just because burning coal raises the temperature there is no reason to shut them all down now. There is a vast difference in the threat.We kill 10,000 of our citizens each year from coal burning and contribute to the warming,in China they kill ten million each year and the eyes sting and throats are sore.If LENR can be contributing to generating energy in five years even if only a little,fine,but if not we should pursue nuclear and advanced nuclear,as we are doing with the Chinese as we speak just in case LENR is not what we hoped for,it could be real but not suitable. Decisions have to be made decades in advance because it takes a while to implement. We know now that nuclear fission produces power safely with little pollution, despite what the truly ignorant say,the same can’t be said for LENR. Your computer and your TV and lights are powered in part by fission unlike LENR. Like all of you I am rooting to be on the ground floor of an energy revolution,but, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

        • Fortyniner

          I agree with the first part, although whether or not there will actually be any reckoning is rather more open to question. A general and rapid re-writing of history seems more likely.

          • Omega Z

            The Question is, What happened in the past to those who suppressed knowledge? The Earth is the center & all revolves around it, Etc, Etc…
            Nothing. What will happen to those who’ve suppressed LENR/CF? Nothing.

            What will change in the Scientific community when LENR is proven & creates a Paradigm Shift? Nothing.
            About 75 years from now, This will all take place once again. With another impossible dream.
            We repeatedly climb out of 1 Paradigm Ditch, Then fall into another.
            It’s not just Science, This is a Phenomena that inflicts all of society.
            Politics, Education, Medicine, Eco groups, Etc, Etc…
            A few will always claw their way to the top of any paradigm, Then Fight to the death to protect it.
            Thus we get, Change generational death at a time.

          • georgehants

            Omega, I continually note a resignation in those that are aware that things are not right, almost a desperation that nothing can change.
            Well maybe just a small beginning would be for all scientists to gain some faith in their abilities.
            If they accepted and worked with the Truth then one may find a blossoming of achievement, unimpeded by fear or going againsed the prevailing mass of negativity.
            All be brave and look at the scientific Evidence regarding for instance UFO’s.
            Let nothing stand in the way of pure scientific TRUTH.
            I am listening.

        • Broncobet

          ” They will pay.”

  • bachcole

    I think that the truth about LENR will dawn on society gradually.

    • georgehants

      The above is not talking about “society” but the people who’s job and profession it is to immediately investigate such a phenomenon.
      It is, I think, not for them to be afraid to do their work and resort by decree of their priests, to deny and debunk, because they do not have the will to face the TRUTH.
      With such a scientific question, “society” is led by science in it’s thinking.

      • bachcole

        If this is the only case, then why are we waiting for commercialization. Waiting for commercialization means that NO academic or scientist needs to be involved. I have already accepted and even embraced the fact that almost no academic or scientist will be involved. I embrace it knowing that they will be crushed by the Juggernaut and they will pay for their stupidity and cowardice and a new day will dawn for science and academia.

        • georgehants

          Agreed but if science 25 years ago had handled Cold Fusion competently then perhaps today with their encouragement and blessing, commerce would have cat’s on supermarket shelves.

          • bachcole

            What if. If cold fusion was handled “properly”, then we wouldn’t be looking at a potential revolution in academia and science. As it is, heads will roll. I guess God had something more in “mind” than just almost free energy.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            bachcole, georgehants ……Maybe generalizing the scientific community too much? I would bet the vast majority of “scientists” have no opinion on LENR and are open to the possibility. The “scientists” I know all say, “I am open to the possibility.”

          • georgehants

            Bernie, of course I agree, but who’s fault is it that all scientists are not fully aware of Cold Fusion and many other important subjects.
            They have all their premier comics and many lessor one’s.
            My point, that I ask you to agree is that it is up to science to change it’s way’s.
            If every scientist does not fight for honesty and TRUTH in science then “generally” every scientist is guilty of allowing the corruption and incompetence to continue.
            In law, ignorant juris non excusat holds and I feel that it is a good principle in science that ignorance of Cold Fusion etc. is no excuse to debunk and abuse it.
            It is I think fair comment that the BAD scientists are dragging down the many good ones.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Can we all agree, our anger should be directed toward the editors of, “reputable recognized scientific journals?” These editors are there to keep their scientist peers abreast of all new developments in their field. They either are simply not doing their job, or they are being influenced by outside forces.

          • Journal editors do occupy powerful ‘gatekeeping’ positions, but they are only relatively lowly cogs in a larger, more amorphous, machine.

          • bachcole

            “ignorance of Cold Fusion etc. is no excuse to debunk and abuse it.” I think that ignorance of cold fusion now is the ONLY excuse for disbelieving it. Our evidence for the existence for cold fusion is FAR stronger and plentiful than is the evidence for dark matter, dark energy, and the Big Bang. Just count the data points and the certainty of the data points. Astronomers have theories that have become popular with way less real data than what we have.

            Dark matter: stars whirling around galaxies too fast (or too slow, I forget which). What else?

            Dark energy: Expansion of the universe accelerating. What else?

            Big Bang: red shift of distant galaxies. background heat of 3 degrees Kelvin. What else?

            We have far more data that is far more solid. My conclusion is that many influential scientists don’t WANT cold fusion to be true, and they are influencing other scientists.

          • Broncobet

            You forgot if the stars were going too fast or to slow??? And you wanted to be taken seriously in anything to do with science?? They are going too fast for the previous beliefs to be true. Dark matter explains it but it is obvious that we have much to learn, and some of what we know now, isn’t true.

          • Omega Z

            Bernie
            There are a lot of scientists open to many fringe elements being possible, But they only acknowledge it among select groups of people. They are not career suicidal.

          • bachcole

            Of course we are generalizing. Almost all blacks are black, but some blacks are albinos. So, are we supposed condition everything that we say because a few blacks are actually whiter than most whites (except of course the albino whites)? Almost all chairs are more comfortable than standing all day.

            I agree that most scientists have no clue that LENR is talked about and is on it’s way. But I see almost all scientists as being emotionally, morally, and spiritually stunted, ready, willing, and able to castigate anyone who isn’t OF the dominant paradigm. In fact, if a person is intellectually or externally oriented, it is likely but not certain that they are inwardly or subjectively blunted or numb. And emotional, moral, and spiritual issues require inward sensitivity.

          • Broncobet

            Heads will roll

        • I agree with the first part, although whether or not there will actually be any reckoning is rather more open to question. A general and rapid re-writing of history seems more likely.

          • Omega Z

            The Question is, What happened in the past to those who suppressed knowledge? The Earth is the center & all revolves around it, Etc, Etc…
            Nothing. What will happen to those who’ve suppressed LENR/CF? Nothing.

            What will change in the Scientific community when LENR is proven & creates a Paradigm Shift? Nothing.
            About 75 years from now, This will all take place once again. With another impossible dream.
            We repeatedly climb out of 1 Paradigm Ditch, Then fall into another.
            It’s not just Science, This is a Phenomena that inflicts all of society.
            Politics, Education, Medicine, Eco groups, Etc, Etc…
            A few will always claw their way to the top of any paradigm, Then Fight to the death to protect it.
            Thus we get, Change generational death at a time.

          • georgehants

            Omega, I continually note a resignation in those that are aware that things are not right, almost a desperation that nothing can change.
            Well maybe just a small beginning would be for all scientists to gain some faith in their abilities.
            If they accepted and worked with the Truth then one may find a blossoming of achievement, unimpeded by fear or going againsed the prevailing mass of negativity.
            All be brave and look at the scientific Evidence regarding for instance UFO’s. Which is forced by non-scientific thinking into the same category as Cold Fusion has been.
            Let nothing stand in the way of pure scientific TRUTH.
            I am listening.

        • Broncobet

          ” They will pay.”

  • Gerard McEk

    I can imagine that scientists would be reluctant to work on CF or even be positive about CF as their income and acceptance in the scientific community will depend on it but also their private situation. That is why admire e.g. Mats Lewan for taking that risk. I am sure this situation will change when the next test results of Rossi or some other CF proof hits the media.
    On the other hand, it makes me sick when ‘scientists’ simply say that SF is not possible, without even taking the time to carefully inform themselves about the subject in a scientific way: Un-bypassed, objective, carefully weighing the evidence., study what theories have been issued, etc. Their conclusion should then be that it is impossible to ignore the overwhelming evidence of excess energy and that they should either shut-up or say that more evidence is needed.

    • GreenWin

      Gerard, scientists don’t simply say CF is not possible. They parrot the “consensus” because they lack the courage to dissent or speak their mind. Courage, a sense of self, original thought… should be the foundation of all education. “Consensus” and its mindless hive is the manifestation of cautionary tales told by e.g. George Orwell (1984), Fritz Lang (Metropolis), Stanley Kubrick (Paths of Glory), George Lucas (THX1138), Franz Kafka (The Trial), Terry Gilliam (Brazil), Aldous Huxley (Brave New Word) etc.

      The triumph of LENR is not just a return to free, open thought and invention; it is a guidepost to original thinking and divine wisdom. IMO 🙂 These things, and more…

      • Gerard McEk

        Nice said GreenWin, I will never reach that level in poetry in your language!

  • Gerard McEk

    I can imagine that scientists would be reluctant to work on CF or even be positive about CF as their income and acceptance in the scientific community will depend on it but also their private situation. That is why admire e.g. Mats Lewan for taking that risk. I am sure this situation will change when the next test results of Rossi or some other CF proof hits the media.
    On the other hand, it makes me sick when ‘scientists’ simply say that SF is not possible, without even taking the time to carefully inform themselves about the subject in a scientific way: Un-bypassed, objective, carefully weighing the evidence., study what theories have been issued, etc. Their conclusion should then be that it is impossible to ignore the overwhelming evidence of excess energy and that they should either shut-up or say that more evidence is needed.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      It is unscientific to try to prove something is impossible. Even the idea of god may seem ridiculous to some scientists, but trying to prove god does not exist is not possible.

      This type of science “proving” a negative is silly and I hope they all learn that soon as I have a few noses I’d like to wipe in it. I’ll be happy for mainstream acceptance for that alone.

      Yet then they will all hide behind the notion they were correct in reserving judgement until the facts were in, or otherwise guise their notions into convincing everyone they were LENR enthusiasts from day one.

      • the problem is that in fact they don’t prove it is impossible, they prove their theory is incompatibel with that observed or imagined fact.
        When a theory works well, it is usefull to know what should not work. we do that every day.

        however when an evidence prove a fact that is incompatible with the theory, you have to prepare to change the theory, or at least note a limitation.

        note that for cold fusion, it was more pathological. Quantum physics does not forbide cold fusion countrary to the pile of stupidities that we hear on wikipedia and alike. Cold fusion is simply nont compatible with the simplest two body free space explanation, or with usual lattice phenomenon observed and theorized…

        cold fusion probably don’t break thermodynamic laws, conservation laws, quantum mechanic, heisenberg uncertainty, general relativity… (probably we are not sure I agree)…
        saying it is impossible is sign of hubris and incompetence mixed.
        It is challenging for the theoreticians however, since nobody could match the evidences with the current theory through a constructive hypothesis. not a reason to insult the electrochemist, because you are challenged by a phenomenon. a tragedy of vexation, that is only that.

        • friendlyprogrammer

          Agreed. The most prevalent argument is the Coulomb Barrier despite a half dozen Theories that explain this. QRT, W/L, Discrete Breather Theory, and …. Okay.. I meant at least 3… Probably another three not coming to mind.

      • Broncobet

        You’re right ,that’s why they say something is “unlikely” or they point out different reasons for something. When presented with enough evidence people change their minds.

      • Broncobet

        I will go to church in the morning but what a scientist would say would never be that God does not exist it’s we don’t need the idea or existence of God to explain that.

    • GreenWin

      Gerard, scientists don’t simply say CF is not possible. They parrot the “consensus” because they lack the courage to dissent or speak their mind. Courage, a sense of self, original thought… should be the foundation of all education. “Consensus” and its mindless hive is the manifestation of cautionary tales told by e.g. George Orwell (1984), Fritz Lang (Metropolis), Stanley Kubrick (Paths of Glory), George Lucas (THX1138), Franz Kafka (The Trial), Terry Gilliam (Brazil), Aldous Huxley (Brave New Word) etc.

      The triumph of LENR is not just a return to free, open thought and invention; it is a guidepost to original thinking and divine wisdom. IMO 🙂 These things, and more…

      • Gerard McEk

        Nice said GreenWin, I will never reach that level in poetry in your language!

  • Gordon

    While all the speculation about the “cowardly” scientists and academics and their “near pathological terror” certainly plays well here, let me point out another factor. I typically get 2 to 3 new announcements of a conference or workshop related to my field (applied mathematics) every day through the various list-servers I am on. Every field I am familiar with is simply swamped with meetings, and scientists and academics have to make tough choices which meetings to attend. Basically, traveling to conference is exhausting, expensive, and often boring. And although non-scientists probably don’t believe it, most academics and scientists are very busy people.

    Given that, why would somebody not working directly in the field of Cold Fusion want to travel to a meeting “to talk about the emotional effects of the technology and not
    get caught up on the debate of whether it’s good research or not.”? Sounds like a complete waste of time to me,
    especially if you are not working in the field.

    Let’s have a meeting on the “emotional effects of free electron laser imaging” and see how many physicists we can get to drop what they are doing and travel to that. I am sure
    the positive responses would only be from people we would later regret had decided to come.

    Gordon

    • You are absolutely right, we do tend to get a little carried away by the ‘cowardly scientists’ theme here – although of course scientists who contribute or even just ‘lurk’ here are completely excluded from this accusation! I have to agree with your dismissal of the topic of the Nesta project in particular, which did seem to be a little on the ‘naff’ side.

      That said, it does seem to be a fact that to publicly take an interest in cold fusion is a form of rapid professional suicide – something which is not the fault of those pursuing scientific careers, but of the captured system that controls tenure, funding and publication. It takes a brave soul to go against the invisible pressures to conform, and in any case rebellion is ultimately pointless, as anyone following that path would quickly find themselves out in the cold.

      As Rossi determined very early on, mainstream science will have little little part to play in the early progress of LENR, and will have a nasty shock when the proof of its reality finally becomes both public and incontrovertible.

      • georgehants

        Peter, butting in but could you confirm for me, that this situation in science that you describe is Wrong.
        Would you confirm that it would be to everybody’s advantage especially science if the freedom was given to it’s scientists to investigate the Truth in all cases, free of any pressures to conform or hide any area deemed by the establishment etc. to be “untouchable”

        • Hi George. Yes, of course its wrong that the direction of research is constrained by profits, political agendas, personal considerations and so on. Unfortunately it’s their ball, and they make the rules of their game (although this is a dubious privilege in cases where public funding is involved).

          My hope is that when CF becomes public knowledge, and the efforts of MFMP come to light more generally, that their project will serve as a model for future research into areas where the mainstream fears to tread. Commercial research will of course continue unchanged, but the ‘academic’ model may (hopefully) take a severe beating during the process, as many more able scientists gravitate to the new model, and people begin to ask why the obvious evidence for CF was plastered over for so long by certain individuals.

          • georgehants

            All agreed, do you agree that it must fall first to the scientific community to put their house in order?
            Until scientists themselves are standing up to the wrongs inflicted on them from above then one, I think, cannot blame the media etc. for ignoring the things that the majority of science is saying are rubbish and cannot exist etc.

          • Sorry, no I can’t agree that – at least not if by ‘scientific community’ you mean researchers themselves. Anyone below a professor in charge of a research facility is a relatively lowly form of life, with little or no influence over the levers of power. Survival is the name of their game.

            The aforementioned professors have by and large arrived at their positions by understanding the hidden implicit ‘rules’ and adapting to them – a degree of professional and personal compromise is often the price they pay for a period of financial security following their active research lives and before they retire on a very generous pension.

            I worked for a decade in a branch of research that became fairly political at one time (chemical and radiation induced mutation/carcinogenesis) and can attest to the pressures to avoid certain areas of research that might cause embarrassment to some well connected party (usually the government or an individual minister with an agenda). Standing against such pressures would (as I said in my earlier comment) have been next to impossible – funding would have disappeared, nothing ‘contrarian’ would have been published, and nothing would have been achieved except unemployment without a reference.

            What is reprehensible (as others have said) is scientists – who are in a position of some authority – publicly dismissing topics such as CF even when they have not bothered to look into the evidence, or worse, using their positions to damage the careers of those braver than themselves who have (Hagelstein’s story springs to mind, but there are many others). In the latter case some form of reckoning is long overdue.

          • georgehants

            Peter, I find your reply genuinely sad, that these people can be put down to the extent that fighting for the Truth is almost impossible without personal harm.
            I truly do not know what to say except something is terribly wrong with today’s science community.
            No wonder I have such a hard time in stating the obvious without being attacked by all and sundry.
            Now of course I have to ask you and all, what is the best course of action to put science back on the rails of Researching the unknown and Truth, free of these terrible threats to a scientists career and family life.

          • Wish I knew, George. I think the best hope is probably a ‘third leg’ in research as exemplified by MFMP (i.e, in addition to in-house research and corporate/government funded ‘academia’). There is a limit to private ‘crowd funding’ for such projects though, so I suppose it would come down to individual research projects seeking corporate funding from the likes of Google, Amazon, Microsoft et al. – with all the attendant dangers.

          • georgehants

            Many thanks Peter.
            It would be a good start, I think, if scientists
            on these pages, where they can be anonymous start to speak freely about
            the pressures on them to conform.
            And respect to those that are today.
            Here they are free because of Admin’s vigilant moderation to speak the
            Truth and hopefully start to change things so that they again can work
            in a profession that can be honest and respected by all.

          • Ted-X

            49-ner, you are close in describing the situations. It is like a war, with regular army against some rebel force. The regular army has everything what they need, supplies, snipers, heavy artillery etc. The professors and the journalists are just soldiers. The rebels are trying to convince soldiers from the opposite trenches to change the sides. That changing is a desertion, for which a penalty is a firing squad (or just firing from a job… or else). Convincing soldiers to change the sides is hopeless. The officers are too watchful. The generals watch the officers. The generalissimus watches the generals. I feel that this is the proper analogy for the situation. The battle is going on as a trench warfare and will last like that until some external event will change the situation.

          • you describe well the groupthink.

            http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

            how delusion trickle-down, the cassandra curse, the mutually assured delusion…

            there are few place to turn soldiers:
            – those already jailed (buit they have no weapon)
            – demobilized old soldiers (no weapon, but experience)
            – abandonned soldiers, who are alone far from the HQ… you can hire them if you propose a safe place… like hiring ignored academics for a private research project.

            It seems LENr-cities is proposing a little village for dissenters, a market sandbox, with strong wall, where dissenter can flee in, and find rich sponsor, colleagues, and population to fight for… like the 7 mercenaries.

            LENR-Cities is just a place to feel safe between heretic in the soon collapse of all markets and academic space.

          • right, it is survival.
            As I said one of the many current problem is that scientist often only have that unique job… they are not rich noble, protected civol servant like Lavoisier, patent officier like Einstein, Telegraph operator like young Edisson… As I explain in another message, Taleb advise people to have a safe job, that allow them to dare crazy project… a safe investment, otherwise…

            the other problem is that the world have become monolithic (in fact no, Asia is out of the Western delusion, just a little hiding).

            Who is guilty ? Roland Benabou explains that delusion trickle down, as you say , because lower people just have to follow the leader delusion (leading in the dependency meaning, like boss, scientific journal, funding agency, opinion newspapers journalist)..
            http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

            so you have to hang the leaders :
            – funding agencies (like DoE, Huizenga)
            – influential scientists advising the government (like seaborg)
            – the journalist and scientific editors (NyT, Science, Nature)
            – Nobel committees

            you can also decimate the followers to motivate them not to follow illegal orders (a good way in modern army to avoid soldiers to obey illegal orders, is to hang them in civil court).

            the problem is not bad people, but bad structure which lead to pathological interest structure.

          • Broncobet

            I guarantee that the pressure forty-niner faced made anything in energy look small in comparison.We spend far more for health research than energy and it really whips up the hysterical quotient,everybody is an expert when it comes to heath ,especially that of their own or their children.

          • Actually it wasn’t that bad. It was only when proposals were made to look into certain things (such as dangers from certain widely used chemical products to which large numbers of the public or workers had been exposed, or the likely long term genetic costs of exposure to man-made radiation sources) that it became clear that there were no-go areas. Stay away from such ‘sensitive’ topics and you had a fairly free hand – although from what I gather this may be rather less the case now.

            As far as health goes, if people ever became fully aware of the criminal depths to which ‘big pharma’ routinely sinks in order to ‘create markets’ and maximise profits (and to hide their more gross mistakes), and the extent of collusion by government agencies with this activity (especially in the US), there would be open revolution I think.

        • Broncobet

          Scientists are free to investigate whatever they like. Ben Franklin introduced a lot of people to electricity. You ,at home ,can demonstrate QM, people around the world cobble together CF and LENR devices in their garages, to say nothing of Google, Apple and Cisco that were started in garages. Mc Carther grants do just what you want,they just give a young scientist a bucket of money with out a word,go blow it in Vegas we don’t care (they never do). For the big money ,we tax payers get a voice.What tax payers want is not to die of cancer,so there is a lot of effort that way. When AIDS came along,that disease was potentially interfering with our reproduction, now they spent far more per patient on AIDS than cancer. If you are interested in energy research as I am ,you would go to the DOE website, where they have done a lot for LENR research but none of you had even heard of it (except AlainCo) and I still haven’t heard if LENR people have taken the $500,000 grants that HAD to be spent on CF or LENR I think there were twenty of them. It won’t make any difference if AR and the rest are being truthful and they have advanced the science to the point where commercial introduction is close.

      • Broncobet

        How can you make this claim? How is AR not part of main stream science? The man has a PhD for crying out loud!!! He’s invented things, formed companies, now has the backing of IH. The Dept of Energy ,US military, Nasa, Mitsibushi, Toyota,the current test being conducted in Europe,you don’t consider them mainstream ? They were picked partly how absolutely mainstream they are. On the other side ,I do understand the valid point you are making but new understanding is found every day .When I was a child there was no mention of inflation (the cosmic kind)plate techtonics ,dark energy,or dark matter, all those things were far more outrageous than LENR and they had to go through peer review multiple times. That’s the place where the Nobels reside,the unknown, the happy place for scientists to hunt.

      • Broncobet

        Maybe,or we can be having this same discussion next year as many of you were saying this not just last year but many years in the past. My mind is open to the possibility but we should proceed with work on other energy sources,like FHR(advanced nuclear) in case LENR is not suitable. It could work just fine but not be economical. It could be economical but dangerous. It could be safe but people think it’s dangerous.

    • Robert Ellefson

      Busy or not, nothing is more important to the future of human life on earth than a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Billions, not millions, of lives will be changed, eventually for the better, once this technology is deployed widely. This is not just another scientific topic to be considered on par with whatever other matters fill a typical scientist’s calendar, and that is why we should all turn up the volume as loudly as possible until They all start paying proper attention. This issue is far too important to be polite to the willfully-ignorant fools who are defending the status quo which is currently maiming our planet and killing our fellow citizens too rapidly for civility-as-usual.

      Edit: In response to Gordon, I do recognize that the limitations of the talk to emotions, and not science, is egregious and off-putting, but I still think “we” (folks who understand the reality of LENR) have a moral obligation to do all in our power to push this technology out into the full sunshine, and if that means talking about emotions, then so be it.

      • Broncobet

        ” Nothing is more important ” Not if a huge asteroid or comet is about to hit us or an attack by our ancient friends and enemies the microbes.Should I assume you subscribe to the AGW camp as I do? That would elevate the importance of LENR,I do agree with you on this point. However just because burning coal raises the temperature there is no reason to shut them all down now. There is a vast difference in the threat.We kill 10,000 of our citizens each year from coal burning and contribute to the warming,in China they kill ten million each year and the eyes sting and throats are sore.If LENR can be contributing to generating energy in five years even if only a little,fine,but if not we should pursue nuclear and advanced nuclear,as we are doing with the Chinese as we speak just in case LENR is not what we hoped for,it could be real but not suitable. Decisions have to be made decades in advance because it takes a while to implement. We know now that nuclear fission produces power safely with little pollution, despite what the truly ignorant say,the same can’t be said for LENR. Your computer and your TV and lights are powered in part by fission unlike LENR. Like all of you I am rooting to be on the ground floor of an energy revolution,but, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

    • Broncobet

      TY

    • Sanjeev

      Gordon, thanks for bringing some balance and sanity to the matter. In fact, I’m a strong opponent of the “orthodox science” and favor the “revolutionaries”, but sometimes we forget that these ordinary scientists are just humans.

      There are only a handful of people on Earth who really grasp the importance and greatness of an unlimited overunity energy source, so I really do not expect these paid workers of science to run to a conference hall at the mere mention of LENR. It will take a lot of time for this idea to sink into the psyche of ordinary folk. I count these “scientists” in ordinary folk, as they are mostly doing a job of scientist rather than being a true scientist. Most of them merely parrot the textbooks, having no vision or innovativeness, follow the dogma religiously and oppose anything new, fearing that it may kick their dinner plate any day.

      The state of science after Copenhagen congress in 1920s is stagnant, almost all development is in the fields of technology (applied physics), thanks to the “scientists”. This long stale state has been broken only by LENR, so one can expect that these people will either pay no attention or oppose the idea habitually. LENR will have multidimensional disruption, in science, society and economy.

      • georgehants

        Sanjeev, your comment brings to mind those Wonderful days of science when Bohr stood up and said, “we all agree your theory is crazy but what divides us is it crazy enough”.

        • Broncobet

          Great quote. However it brings to mind this. You all distrust main stream science, that it cannot understand this wonderful power of LENR , yet Bohr stood up for quantum theory which is far far more revolutionary than LENR, he had Einstien to fight,and his theory was so bizarre that if anyone said they understood it,they didn’t know what they were talking about. Yet the whole world accepted quantum theory because the scientists proved it,that’s all we ask for; prove it. You can run an experiment in your house with simple equipment.You will find that if you look at the light it will go back in time and go through a different slot. How can it know which slot I am looking at? Nothing is or isn’t; there are just probabilities,we probably are here but it’s possible we are just some beings computer program.

          • georgehants

            Broncobet, as science “understands” absolutely nothing of our reality beyond a few basic things, then it’s not understanding Cold Fusion is no problem,
            The problem is, that science tries to make out that it does know far more than it does, and that always turns out to be just dumb “opinion” that the lower ranks of scientists apparently have to follow like sheep because of the threats from the establishment etc.
            Science does not have a clue regarding for example UFO’s etc .and yet almost every scientist is afraid to even discuss the Evidence.
            How can that be called science, they are just making fools of themselves.
            The Quantum World is I think Wonderful, because it is completely not understood by anybody.

          • bachcole

            Everything that George said plus I will go one step farther. If you are not a scientist, then anything that you think that you know is worthless. If you think that raw milk regularly and repeatedly heals your son’s allergies, then that knowledge is worthless, because you did not do a double blind, randomized, cross-over study with hundreds of participants that cost at least tens of millions of dollars, done by people who are “expert” in the field of health science with impressive letters after their names. I could give other examples until my finger’s cramped up.

      • Broncobet

        Yeah, science has gone nowhere since 1920.

  • Bernie777

    bachcole, georgehants ……you might be generalizing the scientific community too much. I would bet the vast majority of “scientists” have no opinion on LENR and are open to the possibility.

    • georgehants

      Bernie, of course I agree, but who’s fault is it that all scientists are not fully aware of Cold Fusion and many other important subjects.
      My point, that I ask you to agree is that it is up to science to change it’s way’s.
      If every scientist does not fight for honesty and TRUTH in science then “generally” every scientist is guilty of allowing the corruption and incompetence to continue.
      In law, ignorant juris non excusat holds and I feel that it is a good principle in science that ignorance of Cold Fusion etc. is no excuse to debunk and abuse it.
      It is I think fair comment that the BAD scientists are dragging down the many good ones.

      • Bernie777

        Can we all agree that our anger should be directed toward the editors of, “recognized scientific journals?” These editors are there to keep their scientist peers abreast of all new developments in their field.

        • Fortyniner

          Journal editors do occupy powerful ‘gatekeeping’ positions, but they are only relatively lowly cogs in a larger, more amorphous, machine.

      • bachcole

        “ignorance of Cold Fusion etc. is no excuse to debunk and abuse it.” I think that ignorance of cold fusion now is the ONLY excuse for disbelieving it. Our evidence for the existence for cold fusion is FAR stronger and plentiful than is the evidence for dark matter, dark energy, and the Big Bang. Just count the data points and the certainty of the data points. Astronomers have theories that have become popular with way less real data than what we have.

        Dark matter: stars whirling around galaxies too fast (or too slow, I forget which). What else?

        Dark energy: Expansion of the universe accelerating. What else?

        Big Bang: red shift of distant galaxies. background heat of 3 degrees Kelvin. What else?

        We have far more data that is far more solid. My conclusion is that many influential scientists don’t WANT cold fusion to be true, and they are influencing other scientists.

        • Broncobet

          You forgot if the stars were going too fast or to slow??? And you wanted to be taken seriously in anything to do with science?? They are going too fast for the previous beliefs to be true. Dark matter explains it but it is obvious that we have much to learn, and some of what we know now, isn’t true.

    • Omega Z

      Bernie
      There are a lot of scientists open to many fringe elements being possible, But they only acknowledge it among select groups of people. They are not career suicidal.

    • bachcole

      Of course we are generalizing. Almost all blacks are black, but some blacks are albinos. So, are we supposed condition everything that we say because a few blacks are actually whiter than most whites (except of course the albino whites)? Almost all chairs are more comfortable than standing all day.

      I agree that most scientists have no clue that LENR is talked about and is on it’s way. But I see almost all scientists as being emotionally, morally, and spiritually stunted, ready, willing, and able to castigate anyone who isn’t OF the dominant paradigm. In fact, if a person is intellectually or externally oriented, it is likely but not certain that they are inwardly or subjectively blunted or numb. And emotional, moral, and spiritual issues require inward sensitivity.

  • it is a recent phenomenon.
    first science is more centralized in reality, because peopple follows leader … why ? because they decide of funding, of peer-review or prize…
    before there was countries, schools, universities, with each having their crazy fringe local ideas… mostly bad, some good..

    second scientist are more and more numerous and single-profession.
    if a modern scientist, a postgraduate, is blacklisted as fringe, he lose all his life… his funding, his citation index, his publication rate, his prize expectations…

    Nassim Nicholas Taleb talk of the “barbel” strategy, to have a safe job/investment (civil servant, bonds, real-estate, boring company, family money)and beside that a crazy risky investment/job (fringe research, cutting edge invention, risk capital)….
    the idea is to avoid the mild risk job or investment, because the gain is mostly overestimated and the risk underestimated…

    Lavoisier was a “fermier general” (tax officer), Eisnteing was a patent officer, Edison was a telegraphist, Rossi was… in jail… Fleischmann was retired, …

    this is why really disruptive ideas in science today are done by retired researchers, bloggers, ….

    the error for scientist is not to give them a real job. 😉
    the danger is that they absolutely want to keep it, best way to mediocrity and lemmings effect.

  • Bernie777

    I am sorry but my “scientist” friends are not cowards and are open to the possibility that LENR exists. They are busy people, waiting for “reputable scientific journals to publish.” I think we should focus our ire towards the editors of those journals.

  • the problem is that in fact they don’t prove it is impossible, they prove their theory is incompatibel with that observed or imagined fact.
    When a theory works well, it is usefull to know what should not work. we do that every day.

    however when an evidence prove a fact that is incompatible with the theory, you have to prepare to change the theory, or at least note a limitation.

    note that for cold fusion, it was more pathological. Quantum physics does not forbide cold fusion countrary to the pile of stupidities that we hear on wikipedia and alike. Cold fusion is simply nont compatible with the simplest two body free space explanation, or with usual lattice phenomenon observed and theorized…

    cold fusion probably don’t break thermodynamic laws, conservation laws, quantum mechanic, heisenberg uncertainty, general relativity… (probably we are not sure I agree)…
    saying it is impossible is sign of hubris and incompetence mixed.
    It is challenging for the theoreticians however, since nobody could match the evidences with the current theory through a constructive hypothesis. not a reason to insult the electrochemist, because you are challenged by a phenomenon. a tragedy of vexation, that is only that.

  • Broncobet

    TY

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    I find it amusing to state questions that can help bring things forward in understanding (at least mine). Currently I’m trying to shed light on an experiment, well known and accepted physics, that if you send protons on hydrogen they rate of nuclear reaction is well above what is expected if you just use the normal physics with gamov factors at moderate energy levels (still small to be practical). This is touted as an effect of electron screening.

    The (in my mind) the interesting question is,

    Well if we have significant screening the incoming proton need to push the electron keeping the shell between them and not pass through the electron shell. What is pushing the electron field? And how does this look like if you could calculate the QM quantities.

    Knowing what is pushing the shell, what parameters does effect it? spin? magnetic field? some effect of Paulis principle. Is orientation important, if it is important did the referring experiment control the orientation. My idea is basically that there was uncontrolled factors intrinsic to the hydrogen atom and incoming proton that if controlled could increase the reaction rate many orders of magnitude, but because the effect is averaged not as high reaction rate was seen. Well I’m not an expert but it is a good question.

    Also forcing the electron shell between the protons, will that mean a collision with two protons and an electron, perhaps deallocated?, have we consider such nuclear reactions in nuclear physics? could the electron be the mitigating factor for the energy so that we don’t see electron radiation.

    Anyhow, Happy Summer to you all!

    • georgehants

      Stefan, your questions like all such observations should be treated with great respect and if they can be temporarily answered with know Experimentation and Evidence discussed accordingly.
      If not then “opinions” must be clearly stated as such and all must agree that the answer is unknown and interesting, but only further Research etc. is applicable.
      Any “opinions” not based on Fact and put forward as a competent direction for Research are an incompetent waste of a scientists time.

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    I find it amusing to state questions that can help bring things forward in understanding (at least mine). Currently I’m trying to shed light on an experiment, well known and accepted physics, that if you send protons on hydrogen they rate of nuclear reaction is well above what is expected if you just use the normal physics with gamov factors at moderate energy levels (still small to be practical). This is touted as an effect of electron screening.

    The (in my mind) the interesting question is,

    Well if we have significant screening the incoming proton need to push the electron keeping the shell between them and not pass through the electron shell. What is pushing the electron field? And how does this look like if you could calculate the QM quantities.

    Knowing what is pushing the shell, what parameters does effect it? spin? magnetic field? some effect of Paulis principle. Is orientation important, if it is important did the referring experiment control the orientation. My idea is basically that there was uncontrolled factors intrinsic to the hydrogen atom and incoming proton that if controlled could increase the reaction rate many orders of magnitude, but because the effect is averaged not as high reaction rate was seen. Well I’m not an expert but it is a good question.

    Also forcing the electron shell between the protons, will that mean a collision with two protons and an electron, perhaps deallocated?, have we consider such nuclear reactions in nuclear physics? could the electron be the mitigating factor for the energy so that we don’t see electron radiation.

    Anyhow, Happy Summer to you all!

    • georgehants

      Stefan, your questions like all such observations should be treated with great respect and if they can be temporarily answered with know Experimentation and Evidence discussed accordingly.
      If not then “opinions” must be clearly stated as such and all must agree that the answer is unknown and interesting, but only further Research etc. is applicable.
      Any “opinions” not based on Fact and put forward as a competent direction for Research are an incompetent waste of a scientists time.

  • Bernie777

    Broncobet….I agree!

  • Sanjeev

    Gordon, thanks for bringing some balance and sanity to the matter. In fact, I’m a strong opponent of the “orthodox science” and favor the “revolutionaries”, but sometimes we forget that these ordinary scientists are just humans.

    There are only a handful of people on Earth who really grasp the importance and greatness of an unlimited overunity energy source, so I really do not expect these paid workers of science to run to a conference hall at the mere mention of LENR. It will take a lot of time for this idea to sink into the psyche of ordinary folk. I count these “scientists” in ordinary folk, as they are mostly doing a job of scientist rather than being a true scientist. Most of them merely parrot the textbooks, having no vision or innovativeness, follow the dogma religiously and oppose anything new, fearing that it may kick their dinner plate any day.

    The state of science after Copenhagen congress in 1920s is stagnant, almost all development is in the fields of technology (applied physics), thanks to the “scientists”. This long stale state has been broken only by LENR, so one can expect that these people will either pay no attention or oppose the idea habitually. LENR will have multidimensional disruption, in science, society and economy.

    • georgehants

      Sanjeev, your comment brings to mind those Wonderful days of science when Bohr stood up and said, “we all agree your theory is crazy but what divides us is it crazy enough”.

  • bachcole

    I believe in the REALITY of innumerable spiritual beings, including but not limited to fairies.

    • Daniel Maris

      Good luck with getting THAT published in Nature. 🙂

    • Maxfield Q Norse

      On the island of Bali, the local people leave little offerings to the garden spirits each morning, a little paper tray with some tiny flowers, a nibble of food a shell filled with drink. Maybe a berry or piece of other fruit. I have never known happier, more friendly people.
      They are smiled upon by the garden spirits. There is more to the universe than is circumscribed within the bounds of science. If there is no room for the human spirit and science to coexist, then science is a wasted exercise.

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        Human mankind is characterized by ’emotional intelligence’ and ‘collective intelligence’, scientifically defined.
        No explanation is provided by science about why flowers grow more beautiful with care, though sensors have shown that plants feel emotions, as they are shown to faint from fear http://witcheslore.com/bookofshadows/herbology/the-sixth-sense-of-plants/4080/.
        The expressions from the Balinese are gratitude, hope, sorrow, desires. Our spiritual dimension has been harnessed (and exploited) throughout history.
        We are fortunate enough in our lifetime to have witnessed this disruptive technology: the internet.
        Happiness, I think, is a balance between knowing we belong to life, protecting it and being grateful for it.

  • bachcole

    I believe in the REALITY of innumerable spiritual beings, including but not limited to fairies.

    • Maxfield Q Norse

      On the island of Bali, the local people leave little offerings to the garden spirits each morning, a little paper tray with some tiny flowers, a nibble of food a shell filled with drink. Maybe a berry or piece of other fruit. I have never known happier, more friendly people.
      They are smiled upon by the garden spirits. There is more to the universe than is circumscribed within the bounds of science. If there is no room for the human spirit and science to coexist, then science is a wasted exercise.

      • bachcole

        Probably when very sweet and simple people just awaken in the morning they may get a glimpse of these spirits. But as they settle into their bodies as they become fully awake, perhaps after they have had their coffee or whatever serves as their coffee, they can no longer see the spirits.

        The scientific method is not necessarily materialistic, but science as it is practiced today is pretty much stone cold materialistic, even if materialism is an unprovable assumption.

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        Human mankind is characterized by ’emotional intelligence’ and ‘collective intelligence’, scientifically defined.
        No explanation is provided by science about why flowers grow more beautiful with care, though sensors have shown that plants feel emotions, as they are shown to faint from fear http://witcheslore.com/bookofshadows/herbology/the-sixth-sense-of-plants/4080/.
        The expressions from the Balinese are gratitude, hope, sorrow, desires. Our spiritual dimension has been harnessed (and exploited) throughout history.
        We are fortunate enough in our lifetime to have witnessed this disruptive technology: the internet.
        Happiness, I think, is a balance between knowing we belong to life, protecting it and being grateful for it.

  • Mats

    What can not be measured can not be controlled. Is that the root of this stigma? Yes COP can be measured, Rossi should be well over competent to do that, but at the QM level? Scientists are expected to explain the interaction of element particles. Any physical scientist who is forwarding CF are expected to explain it’s inner workings. Who dare to do that? Silence is a safe haven. I can see how a few (or at least a minority of) strong minded people can shift the mind of the crowd.

  • Mats002

    What can not be measured can not be controlled. Is that the root of this stigma? Yes COP can be measured, Rossi should be well over competent to do that, but at the QM level? Scientists are expected to explain the interaction of element particles. Any physical scientist who is forwarding CF are expected to explain it’s inner workings. Who dare to do that? Silence is a safe haven. I can see how a few (or at least a minority of) strong minded people can shift the mind of the crowd.

  • ecatworld

    @Broncobet:disqus bet — You said “Scientists are held to low opinion on this site,but the rest of the people on the planet,or the great majority of them, esteem them highly.”

    I hope that this site is not seen to be anti-science, or anti-scientist. I would be disappointed if it was. My opinion is that we should support and applaud scientists who are honest, curious and courageous enough to examine phenomena that has been previously unexplored — even if it is unpopular or unfashionable — and report to the world what they have found. People like Sergio Focardi, Robert Duncan and Sven Kullander come to mind.

    I hope that in some way this site can encourage people to explore science with passion, curiosity and humility, and continue to push the limits of our knowledge.

    • georgehants

      Fairly pointing out the known faults and asking what needs to be done to improve things is far from being anti-science.
      Trying to improve say, the UK national health service by putting right known faults can hardly be described as anti-health service, but being a good and competent manager.

    • bachcole

      Yes, we are pro-science here, VERY. But sometimes we just wish that many scientists felt the same way. And science is NOT about hiding when a topic is unpopular.

      I would love to see some scientist try to see what is going on with UFOs (some have). And when they don’t find any physical evidence for UFOs (probably very little), then get curious as to why there are so many reports of UFO sightings. That in itself is a very curious phenomena. But I don’t see any scientists studying that.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        It is curious, but how to study it (beyond what has already been done)?

        • georgehants

          Morning Pekka, I think it is more the general scientific official attitude that causes all the problems.
          Such phenomenon are important parts of science and should be competently treated as such, not, as now childish denials, debunking and attacking as “crackpots” etc. the people who are competent to act scientifically to study the subject.
          It is this general unprofessional incompetence in many areas that has led to the disaster of delay with Cold Fusion.
          It is very brave of you as a scientist to even ask the intelligent question that you have

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I remember there was one thesis about “the latter it” in Finland, and yes the result was inconclusive and thereby boring.

  • Frank Acland

    @Broncobet:disqus — You said “Scientists are held to low opinion on this site,but the rest of the people on the planet,or the great majority of them, esteem them highly.”

    I hope that this site is not seen to be anti-science, or anti-scientist. I would be disappointed if it was. My opinion is that we should support and applaud scientists who are honest, curious and courageous enough to examine phenomena that has been previously unexplored — even if it is unpopular or unfashionable — and report to the world what they have found. People like Sergio Focardi, Robert Duncan and Sven Kullander come to mind.

    I hope that in some way this site can encourage people to explore science with passion, curiosity and humility, and continue to push the limits of our knowledge.

    • georgehants

      Fairly pointing out the known faults and asking what needs to be done to improve things is far from being anti-science.
      Trying to improve say, the UK national health service by putting right known faults can hardly be described as anti-health service, but being a good and competent manager.
      If a fault develops on the workings of this Website, should we all stay silent, afraid of upsetting Admin if we point out the fault.

    • bachcole

      Yes, we are pro-science here, VERY. But sometimes we just wish that many scientists felt the same way. And science is NOT about hiding when a topic is unpopular.

      I would love to see some scientist try to see what is going on with UFOs (some have). And when they don’t find any physical evidence for UFOs (probably very little), then get curious as to why there are so many reports of UFO sightings. That in itself is a very curious phenomena. But I don’t see any scientists studying that.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        It is curious, but how to study it (beyond what has already been done)?

        • bachcole

          What does “it” refer to? If you mean UFOs, it is difficult to study scientifically (materialistically) if there is no material to study. If you mean the phenomena of lots of people seeing UFOs, I have heard of no studies of that. Perhaps there are and I don’t know about them. Perhaps the results are boring and the news media didn’t report those studies because they were not sensational enough.

          • georgehants
          • Pekka Janhunen

            Yes, this report exemplifies what has already been done.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I remember there was one thesis about “the latter it” in Finland, and yes the result was inconclusive and thereby boring.

        • georgehants

          Morning Pekka, I think it is more the general scientific official attitude that causes all the problems.
          Such phenomenon are important parts of science and should be competently treated as such, not, as now childish denials, debunking and attacking as “crackpots” etc. the people who are competent to act scientifically to study the subject.
          It is this general unprofessional incompetence in many areas that has led to the disaster of delay with Cold Fusion.
          It is very brave of you as a scientist to even ask the intelligent question that you have

    • Hector McNuget

      Site is anti-science?!? No, but! We know evidence, we know facts, we know science path to be taken. Much more than science doers, with clouded goggles big pictures they cant se!

      We make icebergs. icebergs sink boats. Titanic was bad scientist, but icebergs not hate boats. Just science.

    • Broncobet

      I think the behavior on this site by the vocal majority is best explained by AlainCo as he explains “Groupthink” of course it’s the “true believers” here who want to torture and kill all those scientists who held back the wonderful truth of LENR,crop circles,UFO’s,etc. I can see how it would be easy for you to delude yourself on this subject as you have an emotional tie to this blog,it’s your baby, just let the scales fall from your eyes. I am really thankful to you for doing such a fine job of offering people a chance to voice differing opinions,on a variety of subjects, with the main one being the creation of carbon free energy,one of my favorites, with out us being too vituperative. I will sign up for the minimum subscription when I get situated better. TY.

    • Andy Kumar

      UFOs are kind of hard to get an experimental handle on. Just like tornados and hurricanes. If you live inland, it is hard to believe in hurricanes. But Florida residents have frequent sightings.

      For most scientists, part of the difficulty in taking LENR seriously is that they cannot figure out how gentle resistive heating can initiate nuclear scale reactions. But we know that gentle sunshine can be the driver behind the morning breeze and the violent tornados and hurricanes.

      An interesting hypothesis about UFOs is that ETs have already found us and are highly amused. They do not want to make contact and are watching us like zoo animals! They want to see how we will evolve technologically and otherwise.

  • Pierre Ordinaire

    GreenWin says:

    “FINALLY!! Skeptics Fight Back!!

    Good morning gentlemen. The skeptical news for today is our Aussie brothers are puttin the hammer down on solar energy clowns.

    “Essentially, any rooftop solar system under 30kW will gain automatic approval from the networks, as long as it has equipment installed that can prevent it from exporting electricity back into the grid.”

    One thing us skeps know how to do is kill off competition. That’s what our wicked shmaat bros down unda is doin to the solar geeks. Now we got a new weapon to combat Rosie & Cretans with. Halleluiah!

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/utilities-move-to-kick-rooftop-solar-off-the-grid-15250

    • Maxfield Q Norse

      It is very interesting that you reveal nothing of your self, no opinions, not a word from your own mouth, while you stalk GreenWin for things which you claim he has said.

      It is hypocrisy to subject others to a standard of inspection which you will never allow yourself to be subjected to. If you would unmask GreenWin, you must first come out of hiding yourself.

      • Pierre Ordinaire

        GreenWin posts important information and I’m sharing it.

        • Fortyniner

          GreenWin posts here when he feels it is appropriate, and doesn’t require your assistance.

          Your stated motive seems unlikely to be your real motive. Please post your own opinions or news, or go away.

        • georgehants

          Pierre, do you agree that the irrational skeptics that have and are attacking Cold Fusion are nothing but unscientific troublemakers.

    • orsobubu

      This news is very interesting, because demonstrates what I said countless of times here about LENRs impact in economy. The problem, in a capitalistic (imperialistic) production system, is not that we have not energy enough. The problem is that we have too much energy. LENRs are very good for user value (we disperately need new clean and limitless technologies) but are extremely dangerous for exchange value (disruptions in the money extraction and exploitation process). So, here we have n example of the thesis (the need for a new prosperous world), the antithesis (the violence of bourgeoise class, which will be unleashed when its ruling privileges will be threatened) and the synthesis (LENRs technologies): a dialectical, marxistic, revolutionary paradigm. Will need a social organization to fullfill it, a market plan won’t work. Read the article.

    • GreenWin

      Although the ECN “GreenWin” is a skeptical caricature, he is damned amusing! And this article is revealing of how utilities choose to resist competition.

      Do you have any thoughts of your own, Pierre?

  • Hope4Dbest

    GreenWin says:

    “FINALLY!! Skeptics Fight Back!!

    Good morning gentlemen. The skeptical news for today is our Aussie brothers are puttin the hammer down on solar energy clowns.

    “Essentially, any rooftop solar system under 30kW will gain automatic approval from the networks, as long as it has equipment installed that can prevent it from exporting electricity back into the grid.”

    One thing us skeps know how to do is kill off competition. That’s what our wicked shmaat bros down unda is doin to the solar geeks. Now we got a new weapon to combat Rosie & Cretans with. Halleluiah!

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/utilities-move-to-kick-rooftop-solar-off-the-grid-15250

    • Maxfield Q Norse

      It is very interesting that you reveal nothing of your self, no opinions, not a word from your own mouth, while you stalk GreenWin for things which you claim he has said.

      It is hypocrisy to subject others to a standard of inspection which you will never allow yourself to be subject. If you would unmask GreenWin, you must first come out of hiding yourself.

      Are you on a righteous quest, or are you just another anonymous troll? The righteous use their own words, and they do not stalk others from the shadows. Speak your words, or fall to the shadow of ignominy.

      • Hope4Dbest

        GreenWin posts important information and I’m sharing it.

        • GreenWin posts here when he feels it is appropriate, and doesn’t require your assistance.

          Your stated motive seems unlikely to be your real motive. Please post your own opinions or news, or go away.

          • bachcole

            I agree. Frank has made a safe place here for us, and I thank him for it. Subscribers should at least reciprocate by being honest.

        • georgehants

          Pierre, do you agree that the irrational skeptics that have and are attacking Cold Fusion are nothing but unscientific troublemakers?

      • bachcole

        I have noticed zero change in GreenWin, but I just can’t get a fix on this Pierre Ordinaire guy.

    • orsobubu

      This news is very interesting, because demonstrates what I said countless of times here about LENRs impact in economy. The problem, in a capitalistic (imperialistic) production system, is not that we have not energy enough. The problem is that we have too much energy. LENRs are very good for user value (we disperately need new clean and limitless technologies) but are extremely dangerous for exchange value (disruptions in the money extraction and exploitation process). So, here we have n example of the thesis (the need for a new prosperous world), the antithesis (the violence of bourgeoise class, which will be unleashed when its ruling privileges will be threatened) and the synthesis (LENRs technologies): a dialectical, marxistic, revolutionary paradigm. Will need a social organization to fullfill it, a market plan won’t work. Read the article.

    • GreenWin

      Although the ECN “GreenWin” is a skeptical caricature, he is damned amusing! And this article is revealing of how utilities choose to resist competition.

      Do you have any thoughts of your own, Pierre?

  • georgehants

    From Cold Fusion Now
    Cold fusion: the “heirs” of Fleischmann candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize
    Cold fusion generates heated debates and discussions, but the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP) was officially nominated for the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2014. Rather, they were nominated for the working group which also includes the Italian Francesco Celani, for years engaged in the construction of a LENR device.
    onnow.org/cold-fusion-the-heirs-of-fleischmann-candidates-for-the-nobel-peace/#prettyPhoto

  • georgehants

    From Cold Fusion Now
    Cold fusion: the “heirs” of Fleischmann candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize
    Cold fusion generates heated debates and discussions, but the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP) was officially nominated for the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2014. Rather, they were nominated for the working group which also includes the Italian Francesco Celani, for years engaged in the construction of a LENR device.
    onnow.org/cold-fusion-the-heirs-of-fleischmann-candidates-for-the-nobel-peace/#prettyPhoto

    • Andy Kumar

      George,
      I thought LENR people have very low opinion of “prizes” from the corrupt science establishment?
      Even Einstein was ticked off by the Nobel committee for being chickens in not recognizing him for relativity. Also remember that Newton and Darwin do not have the Nobel. Rossi should decline the Nobel prize when it is offered to Him.

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        Obama got the Nobel Prize for peace.

      • Sanjeev

        As far as I know, Nobel is not given for theory and its not given to dead people.
        Perhaps I’m wrong here, but thats what I think is the reason.

        • fact police

          Why would you guess at something so easy to check? Einstein got a Nobel prize for his *theory* of the photoelectric effect. Many Nobel prizes are awarded for theory.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        It could also be that the Nobel committee was aware of Henri Poincaré work.
        “Poincaré published a paper in which he said that radiation could be considered as a fictitious fluid with an equivalent mass of mr=E/C2.”

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

      • georgehants

        Andy, one must not take what I say out of context, scientists like everybody else in life should be rewarded for their good work. (fairly and not corruptly and starting with the basic workers in society, who keep us all alive and comfortable)
        If the system is not deemed to be fair and worthy ,as I am sure Nobel intended then it must be put right like everything else.
        It is basically up to scientists to react if they feel that the system is corrupt or in error.
        Rossi more than anybody, if one looks at his history and Wonderful scientific achievements deserves, (if genuine) ten Nobel prizes.
        It is a shame there is not a Nobel given to every scientist who sticks their fingers up to the corrupt and incompetent establishment etc. that has brain-washed the average scientist to fear talking about such important scientific subjects as Cold Fusion, UFO’s etc. without abuse, debunking etc.
        This clearly shows the poor mentality of every scientist that succumbs to following the herd.
        ——
        When ever one mentions Darwin one must now, as always should have been, mention Wallace, who at last is being excepted as correct and Darwin in error.

        • Andy Kumar

          George,

          It is a shame that Wallace is not given enough recognition. He came up with Natural Selection indipendently. About Darwin being wrong, I am not so sure. There are shades of right and wrong and this is not the place to discuss. In my book, Darwin is the greater genius than Newton or Einstein.

          An interesting book on Wallace and Darwin, you may like it.

          http–www.amazon.com-Delicate-Arrangement-Strange-Charles-Wallace-dp-081290883X

          • georgehants

            Andy, many thanks, you may wish to look into the fairly new science of Epigenetics etc.

      • GreenWin

        Andy, why should Rossi do anything you say? I doubt AR has a “very low opinion of prizes from corrupt science…” He certainly deserves a Nobel of some order. But he may also get the latest in high tech prizes The X-Prize for forbidden (cold fusion) energy. http://www.xprize.org/visioneering

  • georgehants
    • Pekka Janhunen

      Yes, this report exemplifies what has already been done.

  • georgehants

    Broncobet, as science “understands” absolutely nothing of our reality beyond a few basic things, then it’s not understanding Cold Fusion is no problem,
    The problem is, that science tries to make out that it does know far more than it does, and that always turns out to be just dumb “opinion” that the lower ranks of scientists apparently have to follow like sheep because of the threats from the establishment etc.
    Science does not have a clue regarding for example UFO’s etc .and yet almost every scientist is afraid to even discuss the Evidence.
    How can that be called science, they are just making fools of themselves.
    The Quantum World is I think Wonderful, because it is completely not understood by anybody.

  • Broncobet

    You’re right ,that’s why they say something is “unlikely” or they point out different reasons for something. When presented with enough evidence people change their minds.

  • Sanjeev

    As far as I know, Nobel is not given for theory and its not given to dead people.
    Perhaps I’m wrong here, but thats what I think is the reason.

    • fact police

      Why would you guess at something so easy to check? Einstein got a Nobel prize for his *theory* of the photoelectric effect. Many Nobel prizes are awarded for theory.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    It could also be that the Nobel committee was aware of Henri Poincaré work.
    “Poincaré published a paper in which he said that radiation could be considered as a fictitious fluid with an equivalent mass of mr=E/C2.”

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

  • georgehants

    Andy, one must not take what I say out of context, scientists like everybody else in life should be rewarded for their good work.
    If the system is not deemed to be fair and worthy ,as I am sure Nobel intended then it must be put right like everything else.
    It is basically up to scientists to react if they feel that the system is corrupt or in error.
    Rossi more than anybody, if one looks at his history and Wonderful scientific achievements deserves, (if genuine) ten Nobel prizes.
    It is a shame there is not a Nobel given to every scientist who sticks their fingers up to the corrupt and incompetent establishment etc. that has brain-washed the average scientist to fear talking about such important scientific subjects as Cold Fusion, UFO’s etc. without abuse, debunking etc.
    This clearly shows the poor mentality of every scientist that succumbs to following the herd.

  • georgehants

    Job001, bachcole, although you are of course both right in your points, one must never confuse the simple everyday World that we inhabit with the philosophical and deep.
    Is it the TRUTH that Cold Fusion and many other important subjects have been corrupted and delayed by a twisting of the everyday meaning of the Truth.
    Both your points are important, but out of place when discussing the problems of society etc. that needs firm ground to operate in any rational way.

    • Job001

      We agree it’s the TRUTH that corruption and common biases(funding, hubris, ego, etc) played the game. TRUTH however for a true scientist is but a correlated theory subject to change according to observed data.

      That’s the point, for those who refuse to see(observe) the data …….Ignorance reigns!

  • Broncobet

    I will go to church in the morning but what a scientist would say would never be that God does not exist it’s we don’t need the idea or existence of God to explain that.

  • GreenWin

    Andy, why should Rossi do anything you say? I doubt AR has a “very low opinion of prizes from corrupt science…” He certainly deserves a Nobel of some order. But he may also get the latest in high tech prizes The X-Prize for forbidden (cold fusion) energy. http://www.xprize.org/visioneering