“We’re at the Tipping Point” (Brian Westenhaus)

Brian Westenhaus has written an article providing his assessment of the current situation with LENR/E-Cat technology which is published both at New Energy and Fuel and Oilprice.

His overall stance is very bullish, especially given the replication efforts of Alexander Parkhomov, MFMP and others. Westenhaus says that positive results from Parkhomov, coupled with the Lugano report of E-Cat testing bode well for the claims of Rossi, and shed much doubt on what the critics have been saying over the years about the E-Cat being a scam.

He writes:

“These scientists who engage in demoralizing, dismissive and character assassination and destruction have done far more harm than any collection of ‘scammers’ anyone might choose to propose. It’s a huge embarrassment that’s been tolerated for far too long.

[…]

“We’re at the tipping point. Four years ago Mr. Rossi was quite hard to believe. Now the flip looks to be underway. Now its very hard to believe any skeptics.”

I’m not sure if there will be a single ‘tipping point’ moment that will convince everyone all at once — I suppose each of us has our own tipping points which come at different times.

From my own perspective I’ve had very little reason not to believe Rossi from the very beginnings of the story. I think the evidence provided by Focardi, Levi, Kullander and Essen among others in early 2011 gave Rossi’s claims lots of credibility — and over the years the evidence has become even stronger. Successful replications of the ‘Rossi Effect’ will only serve to bolster his claims even more.

  • bachcole

    Amen.

  • Job001

    No one said it would be easy, thousands of research reports, going from low yield electrolytic liquid phase to high yield nano-particle gas phase with electrical and heat stimulation, providing fail safe engineering and control, then the necessity of releasing sufficient data for independent professional replication.

    Now multiple replications of excellent, good, or with slight method variation. LENR has “heat with ash”, the causal basis for the Manhattan project. Next is just plain old science, engineering, certification, patent struggles, and market economics. LENR is finally real acceptable science.

  • Job001

    No one said it would be easy, thousands of research reports, going from low yield electrolytic liquid phase to high yield nano-particle gas phase with electrical and heat stimulation, providing fail safe engineering and control, then the necessity of releasing sufficient data for independent professional replication.

    Now multiple replications of excellent, good, or with slight method variation. LENR has “heat with ash”, the causal basis for the Manhattan project. Next is just plain old science, engineering, certification, patent struggles, and market economics. LENR is finally real acceptable science.

    • bachcole

      IMHO, not quite. But it is getting closer.

      • Warthog

        I think you have to distinguish between the LENR+ (Rossi) and LENR (Pons and Fleischmann) subsets of cold fusion.

        There has been more than sufficient evidence for LENR to be considered “acceptable science” for at least a decade, and probably longer.

        • Pipmon

          LENR certainly is a valid field for investigation. I doubt anyone seriously questions F&P’s ethics and honesty, and that of most workers who have kept at it since then. But that’s not to say that they necessarily believe the more substantial claims regarding massive energy generation claimed by some parties and/or its nuclear origins. Especially since some of these experimenters are not at all forthright in presenting all the data concerning their “experiments”. Given a process supposedly replicating the Sun and claimed to provide unlimited essentially free energy, it should be somewhat like looking for the ‘elephant in the room’ to find evidence of it. Yet truly open experiments (eg MFMP) have yet to find even a mouse (energy wise)!
          The cautionary tale of “Perrette et le Pot au Lait” is highly advisable to the more overenthusiastic supporters of the New Fire. (even Rossi is very cautious to say “results positive or negative” I and don’t think he’s just meaning it in a token way)
          I, like everyone else here, will jump for joy should it ever come to light (pun intended) but will not hold my breath until then.

          • Warthog

            Then you haven’t been paying much attention since 1989, P & F’s honesty has been castigated virtually unanimously by the high-energy physics community. Charlatans, frauds, incompetents, and more and more, much of it not politely printable. As have been those who have continued to work in the area.

            According to the HEP’s, any and all experimentation showing excess heat is simply due to “errors in measurement”.

            And not one single CF researcher has ever said anything about a “process replicating the sun”. P & F’s terminology was “an unknown nuclear process”.

            And the HEP’s have also been total in their resistance to even READING the published papers. Jed Rothwell attempted to pass on paper copies of PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH to one physicist, who simply let it fall on the floor rather than look at it.

            Disgusting!

          • Pipmon

            Perhaps I should have put in ‘time frames’. Yes originally they were cast out, that is very obvious and the entire field was discredited. What I meant and should have perhaps been more explicit in stating is that currently I don’t believe this is the situation anymore. My impression, and possibly it is only that, is that F&P’s detractors have certainly muted their vociferous disapproval (or died in the meantime) and that LENR is not anywhere near as toxic for someone aspiring to a career in Physics as it was before.

          • Warthog

            “…and that LENR is not anywhere near as toxic for someone aspiring to a career in Physics as it was before.”

            One can only hope that such proves to be the case, but I don’t see all that much evidence of it. Certainly those HEP’s that currently control the levers of power in various federal scientific agencies (DOE and such) and science publications (Nature, Science, etc) don’t seem to have moved at all.

            But with your clarifying comments, I’ll move you out of the category of “pathological skeptic” to “rational skeptic” (which is what any TRUE scientist should be).

          • bachcole

            I am a curious rational skeptic and will be until the day that I die.

            A pathological skeptic is willing, happy even, to call everyone who believes a liar, a crook, or psychotic rather than believe.

            A regular rational skeptic says: “Show me.” (But not all rational skeptics come from Missouri, the “Show Me state”.)

            A curious rational skeptic says: “I will investigate this.”

          • bachcole

            Your lack of awareness is not something that most of us here share.

            You can start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtweR_qGHEc

            When you are done with that, then get back to me and I will present to you LENR 102.

          • Pipmon

            Not to worry. I have seen that one and quite a few others, including the incredibly sleep inducing course on YouTube as given at MIT.
            Notwithstanding, and taking into account many theories purporting to explain the LENR effect, I took away the notion (my choice of theories you might say) that LENR is like the Sun if you prefer the perhaps not prevalent idea that at the Sun’s core processes are mediated by the ‘weak force’.
            Most LENR theories have the weak force as the major actor.

            I have absolutely no doubt that some process (LENR or any other name) is responsible for the transmutations and accompanying energy events that have been seen. My caution, specifically, is that I find it hard to believe that Rossi has managed to get that far ahead of everyone else, especially in the energy generating part of this intriguing story.
            PS: I have been following, as much as was possible, F&P since their initial declaration in 1989. Always with the firm conviction that they would be vindicated, as I simply could not fathom a man of such reputation as Dr. Fleischmann suddenly making fraudulent claims.
            I do not hold everyone else in the field in such high esteem.

  • Wonderboy

    We should put a list of all the scientific critics who dismissed him as a fraud.

    I personally loved the pseudo scientist who claimed it was impossible because of the law of physics.

    I think professional skecptism is healthy, but that isn’t what happened.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Here’s a good starting point Wonderboy.

      The Rise and Decline of Cold Fusion (15 March 1990) See page 8.

      “…was surprised to find that in Northern Europe and the USA area 1(the major labs and the North-East) the results were almost all negative whereas in Eastern and Southern Europe, Asia, Latin America and USA area 2 (the rest of the USA) the results were almost entirely positive….”
      http://cds.cern.ch/record/206479/files/cer-000118282.pdf
      We’ll have to keep this in mind when it’s time to rerank the world’s institutions.

  • Jarea1

    I agree with the Brian Westenhause. He is right. The mainstream is harming much more that the possible scammers by considering new possible discoveries as scam and ignoring the evidence. We really have to clean the corruption in scientific method. They are only carried by interest in their own projects and agendas defending their project supporters and ignoring the facts that can harm their subventions. They really forget the honest curiosity of the scientist to disprove by evidence and testing not by just saying that everything that goes beyond the current dogma is false.
    A real scientist doesn’t give statements for sure if they have not experimented directly with the evidence provided.

    • Valeriy Tarasov

      It is time for paradigm change in current physics. Academic physicists know very good physics textbooks. In these textbooks LENR is not possible, and this is why the bases of current theories should be revised, but this is very scary for them even if they realise this long time ago.

      • These people have invested many years in mastering the content of the textbooks, constructing a world view based exclusively on this information and theory, and perhaps elaborating the model through their own research contributions. They have come to feel completely secure in their ‘correctness’.

        Now along comes a phenomenon that if confirmed will prove beyond doubt that what they think they know is incorrect or at best, incomplete, and the solid ground they thought they stood on turns to quicksand. Their lifetime investment (and perhaps their income) is threatened, much of their ‘knowledge’ could actually become worthless and irrelevant, and their personal standing might collapse overnight. Even Rossi seems to demonstrate this failing to a small degree, in repeatedly insisting that cold fusion doesn’t violate the Standard Model, when in fact the mechanism is at best only partially understood, even by him.

        I suppose it is not really surprising that many scientists react more like a tribe of defensive monkeys than the educated rationalists they may feel themselves to be. Instead of presenting evidence-supported counter-argument or expressing quiet disbelief, many actively refuse to look at the new evidence and become increasingly irrational if pressed. Even worse, a minority actively attack the originators of dissenting ideas, often using ‘dirty tricks’ that the perpetrators must obviously know are morally and ethically reprehensible, yet which they somehow feel justified in carrying out.

        MIT’s famous ‘Death of cold fusion party’ was actually about a sense of relief that the status quo ante was restored by the apparent removal of a ‘threat’, even though this had been accomplished by deceit and character assassination that many of those taking part would have been aware of to one degree or another.

        So much for objective science. There is an increasing need for some house cleaning that will require many early retirements.

      • reading well those textbopk, you see that LENR is in the “material science” section, in a future chapter.

        it is not in the particle physics section, not in plasma physics, nor fission physics…

        that LENR is impossible is a myth. it is just not yet predicted because material science and it’s collective effects allow too many things to exist.

        it is just an ego wound for physicist who did not predict or understand it.

        • Valeriy Tarasov

          I don’t agree. IMHO LENR requires first of all the changes
          in the definition of electrical charge, and therefor a lot of ground breaking changes
          in the particle physics section, as well as in physics of nucleus formation and the nuclei
          fission processes.

    • it is ight that preventing any mistake in science, in politics, in business, in medicine, is in fact very costly, and it block creativity, innovation, and thus massive improvement of life.

      the problem is that however some of those mistakes spread but become viral if not consensus. this should be stopped however.

      what we should enforce is that what is judged ridicule, stay localized and harmless until it is validated.
      pseudo-medecines, conspiracy theories, Luddites fear, should not became mainstream, taught to all the school, forced by law, implemented by FCC…

      however the question is who will judge it is ridiculous or mainstream…
      finally why not let some freedom, yet prevent some group to catch a monopoly on the viral vectors like TV, internet… allow competition in ideas, like on trade…

      more freedom, except the freedom to prevent others to be free.

  • georgehants

    Would it be fair to ask again where Cold Fusion would be today if establishment science was doing it’s job and had thousands of researchers investigating and probing Cold Fusion.
    The few Heroes who have followed scientific principles and with open-minds come as far as they have, Mr Rossi being a leading light, make main-line science look like incompetent half-wits.
    What do scientists witnessing this farce of comical proportions think of the leadership of their profession?
    Does the average scientist care?
    ——–
    Link below to just another of the many scientific failures.
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment

    • bachcole

      I don’t think that they are incompetent half-wits. I think that they are shallow thinking philosophical retards. They confused scientific principles with scientific theory and said that it violates theory so it can’t be true. The number one scientific principles that they didn’t follow was curiosity. Their greed powered their ignoring the impressive credentials of F&P.

      • georgehants

        Roger you are very strange, you are describing incompetent half-wits.

        • bachcole

          No. Everyone of those people are far more competent at their jobs than I ever was. Everyone of them could rip me a new one in an I.Q. contest. Their problem is a lack of self-awareness (letting their greed quash their curiosity) and an inability to even try to see someone else’s viewpoint (a failure to try to understand why F&S would toss their careers). These two faults explain their behavior, yet neither has anything to do with wits. I would hate to get into a debate with them on just about any issue. They are smarter than me. But they lack self-awareness and awareness of others.

          • Eyedoc

            Can we agree on “egotistical pri*ks”

          • georgehants

            Eyedoc, Ha yes, dear Roger would go on splitting hairs until the cows come home.

          • georgehants

            Roger, I said “makes them look like half-wits” you have missed the point, if you think that all these people have an IQ higher than yours then fine, but IQ has no bearing on my comment and clearly has no connection with if somebody is a half-wit.
            A half-wit is used to describe somebody that fails to use their brains not somebody that has a low IQ.
            People who think their “opinions” become Facts are certainly half-wits.
            ——-
            “The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
            ― Albert Einstein

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Oh George, why can’t we just gloss over the fact that they set LENR back a quarter of a century and wait with bated breath for their next pronouncement?

      • georgehants

        Because the same thing that delayed Cold Fusion is happening in many other scientific areas.
        Do you not agree that needs to change and science to become free and honest and competent with all of it’s endeavors.
        Expert “opinion” that is taken as Fact is not science but religious crap that destroys every scientific principle.
        Arrogant science needs to start using the words, we don’t know, we will try and find the True answer.
        Could I ask you, is it possible that UFO’s are a genuine unknown phenomenon that could be important to us all and need full Research, or not?
        Best
        http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment

        • bachcole

          “is it possible that UFO’s are a genuine unknown phenomenon” We don’t know and I don’t care. If they were physically real and want us to know about them, we would know about them. If they are not physically real, then they are proper research for psychical research. In which case I still don’t care because I don’t see any benefit to being able to read people’s minds or whatever else psychical research can discover and develop. When the bad guys learn to read minds, then we are all in serious trouble. What we need to do is turn the bad guys into good guys, and the ONLY way to do that is to start with one’s self.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yes you’re exactly right. Here’s another great discovery that academia is trying their best to ignore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va0BIqfzpvo

  • georgehants

    Wonderful day

  • Warthog

    I think you have to distinguish between the LENR+ (Rossi) and LENR (Pons and Fleischmann) subsets of cold fusion.

    There has been more than sufficient evidence for LENR to be considered “acceptable science” for at least a decade, and probably longer.

  • Snowball at the top of ignorance hill.
    The hill high and steep:
    Cold fire comes roaring to warm all.

    • Job001

      Tis the nature of knowledge to coexist with ignorance, doubt and uncertainty. The greatest ignorance is by those who will not see the evidence, observations, data, reports;Typically due to neurological biases, including funding, fear, and laziness.

      • Just my meagre attempt at a Haiku.
        But my version which is 7-5-7.
        Instead of the Japanese 5-7-5.
        I find that this way round is more informative.
        I still try to get a season in some how.

        • Job001

          Doubt begets Knowledge
          Funding fear willful blindness
          Blindness begets ignorance

          Thanks, obviously I don’t “get” it yet…

  • mcloki

    This is going to make a fabulous PBS NOVA special.

  • mcloki

    This is going to make a fabulous PBS NOVA special.

  • Billy Jackson

    I think the tipping point was the fuel/ash composition. Of all the information released this was suddenly something people could physically work with. outside of claims of sleight of hand this single aspect has done more to advanced LENR and Rossi’s case than the past 3 years of reports and unconfirmed claims.

  • GreenWin

    In an article published today in the Russian “Sputnikzemli” (artificial satellite) Alexander Parkhomov comments on the future implications of LENR and the E-Cat. I have translated from the Google xlation as best I can:

    “…According to Alexander Parkhomov LENR technology has fantastic commercial prospects. Resources of nickel and hydrogen (the main fuel for the Rossi reactor) are practically inexhaustible. Thus, oil, gas and nuclear power will be relegated to the past. As will unnecessary costly and resource-intensive power lines, power plants. and external heat sources. All these [forms of] energy you can get from a [LENR] home generator. This will entail malopredskazuemy consequences in politics, economics, finance and social life.” http://bit.ly/1CnUqtP

    The word “malopredskazuemy” does not translate in Google. Perhaps our Russian speakers will translate this interesting word I assume to mean “disruptive.”

    • Ted-X

      Malopredskazuemy means “difficult to predict”.

    • Mytakeis

      would say Malopredskazeumy meaning ‘preliminary’

  • GreenWin

    In an article published today in the Russian “Sputnikzemli” (artificial satellite) Alexander Parkhomov comments on the future implications of LENR and the E-Cat. I have translated from the Google xlation as best I can:

    “…According to Alexander Parkhomov LENR technology has fantastic commercial prospects. Resources of nickel and hydrogen (the main fuel for the Rossi reactor) are practically inexhaustible. Thus, oil, gas and nuclear power will be relegated to the past. As will unnecessary costly and resource-intensive power lines, power plants. and external heat sources. All these [forms of] energy you can get from a [LENR] home generator. This will entail malopredskazuemy consequences in politics, economics, finance and social life.” http://bit.ly/1CnUqtP

    The word “malopredskazuemy” does not translate in Google. Perhaps our Russian speakers will translate this interesting word I assume to mean “disruptive.”

    • Ted-X

      Malopredskazuemy means “difficult to predict”.

      • Bob Matulis

        … then “malopredskazuemy” is an understatement!

    • Arthur Wendel

      Unpredictable?

    • HS61AF91

      would say Malopredskazeumy meaning ‘preliminary’

  • it is ight that preventing any mistake in science, in politics, in business, in medicine, is in fact very costly, and it block creativity, innovation, and thus massive improvement of life.

    the problem is that however some of those mistakes spread but become viral if not consensus. this should be stopped however.

    what we should enforce is that what is judged ridicule, stay localized and harmless until it is validated.
    pseudo-medecines, conspiracy theories, Luddites fear, should not became mainstream, taught to all the school, forced by law, implemented by FCC…

    however the question is who will judge it is ridiculous or mainstream…
    finally why not let some freedom, yet prevent some group to catch a monopoly on the viral vectors like TV, internet… allow competition in ideas, like on trade…

    more freedom, except the freedom to prevent others to be free.

  • Jappha Nakhanny

    COMMENTS DELETED BY ANDREA ROSSI in his blog Journal of Nuclear Physics:

    Why is Andrea Rossi betraying the scientific method?
    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3600&mode=&order=0&thold=0

    COMMENTS DELETED BY ANDREA ROSSI IN HIS BLOG
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/COMMENTS_DELETED_BY_ANDREA_ROSSI_IN_HIS_BLOG

    • pg

      Wladimir, take it easy mate

      • georgehants

        It is clear that Wladimir is making very fair scientific points that Mr. Rossi will need to address to justify his behaviour if the report is completely accurate.
        Nobody can walk away from Evidence that does not conform to their beliefs.
        It is this kind of unscientific behaviour that has led to the 26 year delay of Cold Fusion.

        • giovanniontheweb

          yes, unscientific behavior driven by the most recognized scientists, blindness or cash flow?

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Maybe. I posted this before but it might be worth posting it again here:

          Dayton Miller shook up the physics establishment in the 1920s with his interferometer that was three times more sensitive than the one used in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887.
          “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.”
          — Albert Einstein
          http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

          • Alan DeAngelis

            PS
            E=MC^2 Without Relativity (Andrew Gould)
            http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0504486.pdf

          • Alan DeAngelis

            PPS
            The Non-existence of Black Holes and the Failure of General Relativity.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINHHXaPrWA

          • Job001

            Thanks, that is fun!

            This is further confirmation of my theory that modern physics has a philosophy problem that involves core assumptions and bad models.

            Half of the physics community talks about things they can never test or observe like the bubble universe nonsense or the assumption of constant speed of light everywhere(what about where more unproven dark matter exists?).

            My confidence in the average physics professional ebbs to somewhat above our lawyers politicians.

          • bachcole

            Job001, that is music to my ears (or eyes) I have been saying for years that scientists are all philosophical retards. And they respond with things that imply that the only things in existence are things they have discovered and proven. They and they alone hold the keys to all knowing. They seem to lack imagination also.

          • Brokeeper

            “For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal” also, “He upholds the universe by the word of his power.” Stick that into secular scientist’s black hole, black matter, black energy quantum theoretical equations. Oh, forgive me; it has not been experimentally proven yet – how stupid of me.

          • I remember some LENR scientist moaning on the focus of most LENr scientists on theory, abandoning interest for experimental discussions. Recent Pakhomov discussion is refreshing.

            some other was moaning that in theory discussions, mostly it is hypothetical mathematically defined nuclear events, matching a small set of experimental results, ignoring the less sexy dirty chemical environments, and the very varied experimental catalog…

            there is a problem in scienc, especially physics , especially physics theory :
            – too much theory
            – too much math
            – too much models
            – too much computers

          • georgehants

            Is not science exciting and Wonderful when done correctly with open-minds that allow for any throw of the dice to happen, even a double seven. 🙂
            “The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
            ― Albert Einstein

        • Omega Z

          George, This has gone on for quite sometime on JONP. Wlad has promoted his work as explaining The Rossi effect more or less. There have also been others who propose ideas that would imply that the Rossi effect steps outside the bounds of the laws of physics.

          Rossi has steadfastly said that the Rossi effect doesn’t. That it merely requires a deeper understanding of the existing laws. Does Rossi know this for a fact or not. It doesn’t matter. You wouldn’t want to say so even if it did & you new it. That would just make his task of getting it to market that much harder. Let the academics fight it out latter. Rossi already has a long hill to climb. Most of us don’t really care as long as it works.

          • georgehants

            Omega Z, what most think does not concern me only open honest science.
            Mr. Rossi made a statement and it is for him or any other scientist in the same position to be willing to look and debate the Evidence or theory.
            Mr Rossi’s only alternative is to state that he does not know and retract the statements he has made concerning Wladimir’s Evidence.
            How long it takes to find the Truth is also irrelevant as long as the appropriate effort is being made to find the Truth and only the Truth.
            Their debate is not about the “Rossi effect” but the quantum and relativistic reality.
            We are all academics when it comes to the Truth and just like many academics, people are willing to bend their position to suit themselves and not the Truth.
            Would you agree that the reason Cold Fusion is not much further advanced as we would all like, is the faults that I highlight regarding science administration and scientists.
            Best wishes.
            G

    • Job001

      It is no betrayal of science to redact critical data that would reveal non-patented or not easily protected methods. Alternate explanations exist.

    • bkrharold

      At this point, nobody really knows the source of the anomalous heat, neither Rossi or anyone else. Many different researchers will have to explore the phenomenon, methodically testing different theories. Eventually when the overwhelming majority agree, a consensus will be reached, and that theory will be accepted. This process might take years. This is the work that should have started in 1989. America has been cheated by the science establishment, the fossil fuel industry, and our government.

      • bachcole

        And who, how, when, where, and why did the fossil fuel industry quash LENR? I see the science establishment fouling up. I see no evidence whatsoever that the fossil fuel industry had anything to do with it. They still might try to do so, but so far I see them more as a deer in the headlights.

        Originally, Cornelius Vanderbilt was into shipping. That is what made him seriously rich. When it became obvious to him that railroads were a better investment, he switched all of his assets to railroads, selling all of his shipping assets. Rich people are not stupid, and they don’t always retard progress. Sometimes they promote it. Edison’s light bulb was going no where until J.P. Morgan walked into his lab and asked him if he could help.

  • Job001

    Tis the nature of knowledge to coexist with ignorance, doubt and uncertainty. The greatest ignorance is by those who will not see the evidence, observations, data, reports;Typically due to neurological biases, including funding, fear, and laziness.

  • pg

    Wladimir, take it easy mate

    • georgehants

      It is clear that Wladimir is making very fair scientific points that Mr. Rossi will need to address to justify his behaviour if the report is completely accurate.
      Nobody can walk away from Evidence that does not conform to their beliefs.
      It is this kind of unscientific behaviour that has led to the 26 year delay of Cold Fusion.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Maybe. I posted this before but it might be worth posting it again here:

        Dayton Miller shook up the physics establishment in the 1920s with his interferometer that was three times more sensitive than the one used in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887.
        “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.”
        — Albert Einstein
        http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

        • Alan DeAngelis

          PS
          E=MC^2 Without Relativity (Andrew Gould)
          http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0504486.pdf

          • Alan DeAngelis

            PPS
            The Non-existence of Black Holes and the Failure of General Relativity.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINHHXaPrWA

          • Job001

            Thanks, that is fun!

            This is further confirmation of my theory that modern physics has a philosophy problem that involves core assumptions and bad models.

            Half of the physics community talks about things they can never test or observe like the bubble universe nonsense or the assumption of constant speed of light everywhere(what about where more unproven dark matter exists?).

            My confidence in the average physics professional ebbs to somewhat above our lawyers politicians.

          • I remember some LENR scientist moaning on the focus of most LENr scientists on theory, abandoning interest for experimental discussions. Recent Pakhomov discussion is refreshing.

            some other was moaning that in theory discussions, mostly it is hypothetical mathematically defined nuclear events, matching a small set of experimental results, ignoring the less sexy dirty chemical environments, and the very varied experimental catalog…

            there is a problem in scienc, especially physics , especially physics theory :
            – too much theory
            – too much math
            – too much models
            – too much computers

          • Alan DeAngelis
        • georgehants

          Is not science exciting and Wonderful when done correctly with open-minds that allow for any throw of the dice to happen, even a double seven. 🙂

      • Omega Z

        George, This has gone on for quite sometime on JONP. Wlad has promoted his work as explaining The Rossi effect more or less. There have also been others who propose ideas that would imply that the Rossi effect steps outside the bounds of the laws of physics.

        Rossi has steadfastly said that the Rossi effect doesn’t. That it merely requires a deeper understanding of the existing laws. Does Rossi know this for a fact or not. It doesn’t matter. You wouldn’t want to say so even if it did & you new it. That would just make his task of getting it to market that much harder. Let the academics fight it out latter. Rossi already has a long hill to climb. Most of us don’t really care as long as it works.

        • georgehants

          Omega Z, what most think does not concern me only open honest science.
          Mr. Rossi made a statement and it is for him or any other scientist in the same position to be willing to look and debate the Evidence or theory.
          Mr Rossi’s only alternative is to state that he does not know and retract the statements he has made concerning Wladimir’s Evidence.
          How long it takes to find the Truth is also irrelevant

          There debate is not about the “Rossi effect” but the quantum and relativistic reality.
          We are all academics when it comes to the Truth.
          Best wishes.
          G

  • Job001

    Doubt begets Knowledge
    Funding fear willful blindness
    Blindness begets ignorance

    Thanks, obviously I don’t “get” it yet…

  • Eyedoc

    Can we agree on “egotistical pri*ks”

    • georgehants

      Eyedoc, Ha yes, Roger would go on splitting hairs until the cows come home.

  • Job001

    It is no betrayal of science to redact critical data that would reveal non-patented or not easily protected methods. Alternate explanations exist.

  • georgehants

    Roger, I am stating Facts in my comment, you are giving “opinions” if you know that all these people have an IQ higher than yours then fine, but IQ has no bearing on my comment and clearly has no connection with if somebody is a half-wit.
    People who think their “opinion” become Facts are certainly half-wits.

  • BroKeeper

    “For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal” also, “He upholds the universe by the word of his power.” Stick that into secular scientist’s black hole, matter, energy quantum theoretical equations. Oh, forgive me; it has not been experimentally proven yet – how stupid of me.

  • BroKeeper

    CRACK! The skeptics, PTBs, and paradigm-stuck physicists are about to get soaked by the waters gushing out of denier’s dam faults weakened by the protectorates of scientific truth. It’s difficult for them to speak when running for cover.

    This is a great article reported in valued ‘New Energy and Fuel’ and ‘OilPrice.com’ sites viewed by the energy industries. It has past the “tipping point” and the slopes are becoming much steeper thanks to you, Brian.

  • Brokeeper

    CRACK! The skeptics, PTBs, and paradigm-stuck physicists are about to get soaked by the waters gushing out of denier’s dam faults weakened by the protectorates of scientific truth. It’s difficult for them to speak when running for cover.

    This is a great article reported in valued ‘New Energy and Fuel’ and ‘OilPrice.com’ sites viewed by the energy industries. It has past the “tipping point” and the slopes are becoming much steeper thanks to you, Brian.

  • Christina

    My two cents say that scientists who are religious explore the improbable because their science tells them something is there and their faith in God tells them that if their instruments show something is there then they must explore it because God does not lie.

    Because of their faith we got the modern era of scientific endeavor.

    It seems that today we have a lot of scientists who believe in only themselves and their science and new ideas threaten that science so new avenues are not researched diligently.

    That is why there’s been a twenty-five-year-lag.

    Christina

  • georgehants

    Roger, your comment is unanswerable as it has no logical connection to my comment.
    It is just a unscientific ramble with no meaning.
    It is just your strange way of thinking running amok with your opinions. that has no scientific validity, just personal rambling.
    If you wish to converse about subjects please try and stick to them
    without letting your strange imagination run away with you.
    Thank you..

  • bkrharold

    At this point, nobody really knows the source of the anomalous heat, neither Rossi or anyone else. Many different researchers will have to explore the phenomenon, methodically testing different theories. Eventually when the overwhelming majority agree, a consensus will be reached, and that theory will be accepted. This process might take years. This is the work that should have started in 1989. America has been cheated by the science establishment, the fossil fuel industry, and our government.

    • bachcole

      And who, how, when, where, and why did the fossil fuel industry quash LENR? I see the science establishment fouling up. I see no evidence whatsoever that the fossil fuel industry had anything to do with it. They still might try to do so, but so far I see them more as a deer in the headlights.

      Originally, Cornelius Vanderbilt was into shipping. That is what made him seriously rich. When it became obvious to him that railroads were a better investment, he switched all of his assets to railroads, selling all of his shipping assets. Rich people are not stupid, and they don’t always retard progress. Sometimes they promote it. Edison’s light bulb was going no where until J.P. Morgan walked into his lab and asked him if he could help.

  • fusionrudy

    I am trying to get LENR into the MSM in Zwitserland. If readers here give me a like on this link (fusionrudy) it will get more attention there.
    http://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/kritischer-blick-auf-das-energiepaket-1.18482917

    • friendlyprogrammer

      Okay .. I did. I don’t understand what was said, but i hope its Pro LENR.. lol

  • friendlyprogrammer

    Okay .. I did. I don’t understand what was said, but i hope its Pro LENR.. lol