New Indian Express on Encouraging LENR Research

There continue to be repercussions from the publication of the special section on LENR in the Indian journal Current Science.

Today in the New Indian Express newspaper, V Sudarshan writes about the publication of this collection of papers in an article titled “Making a Nuclear Power Point”, and proposes that Indian scientist should examine the topic to see if it is a feasible technology for practical energy production. He seems impressed with the Current Science publication, calling it ‘remarkable’.

Sudarshan covers some background, reviewing the Pons and Fleischmann affair back in 1989, and their subsequent fall from grace in the eyes of the scientific community who relegated cold fusion to the status of junk science. Sudarshan pins the blame on nuclear scientists working on fission and hot fusion. He now thinks it is time to rethink cold fusion, pointing at the growing number of enthusiasts for the subject worldwide.

He writes:

“There have been as many as 18 international conferences devoted to this subject. In January 2011, Italian Andrea Rossi announced he had developed a working reactor (e-cat) . . . There are also home variants in the works. The preface to the special section in Current Science points out that analysts are terming LENR as “disruptive technology” with the potential to turn the world economic order topsy turvy.

“My suggestion is: we pride ourselves as a country that had cracked scientific research even before science became science as we now have come to know and understand it. Would it be too much to get a group of scientists together to determine if this is a technology that we could explore for our mind-boggling energy requirements?”

There are a few out-of-date ideas in his description of the E-Cat (e.g. transmutation of nickel to copper), and an inaccurate pricetag on the 1MW plant ($1.5 billion instead of million), but overall Sudarshan makes a good case for at least looking into this technology.

  • I can’t remember: what was actually the reason why in one of the first ash analysis copper were found?
    Because the reactor material was made of copper tubes?

    Has Rossi himself anytime said that his reactor “fuses nickle to copper”? I mean has Rossi anytime said that his reactor is exploting a fusion process? Or was it the media who interpreted it so?

    At the moment I’m trying to fix some wrong statements at wikipedia and I am looking for sources of this statements.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I think Cu came from plumbing, maybe the hydrogen pipe. Rossi did say it himself and even wrote a paper with Focardi http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf . He later retracted it by admitting that the main energy producing mechanism was not copper production.

      • Thank you Pekka!

        Do you have a source for Rossis retraction?

    • Obvious

      If you look at the “leaked” SEM-EDS report ( before Lugano) it suggests some particles have the same metal ratios as brazing alloy.
      Potentially some copper could be made, but it would decay to nickel, and not last long enough for analyses to catch it.

  • I can’t remember: what was actually the reason why in one of the first ash analysis copper were found?
    Because the reactor material was made of copper tubes?

    Has Rossi himself anytime said that his reactor “fuses nickle to copper”? I mean has Rossi anytime said that his reactor is exploting a fusion process? Or was it the media who interpreted it so?

    At the moment I’m trying to fix some wrong statements at wikipedia and I am looking for sources of this statements.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I think Cu came from plumbing, maybe the hydrogen pipe. Rossi did say it himself and even wrote a paper with Focardi http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf . He later retracted it by admitting that the main energy producing mechanism was not copper production.

      • Thank you Pekka!

        Do you have a source for Rossis retraction?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          One is http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=763&cpage=2#comment-403236 “Both work, both essential, some transmutes in copper as a side effect.” I think I have seen it stated a bit more clearly in some video interview, but it’s hard to search from videos.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Another one, better: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=748&cpage=7#comment-387630 November 3rd, 2012 at 7:41 AM “I did say that as a side effect traces of Cu are formed, but that this is not the mail source of energy.”

            And even better: September 23rd, 2012 at 3:09 AM http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=733&cpage=5#comment-332802 “The high percentage of Cu found 2 years ago was probably due to
            impurities and to the difficulty to take, at those quantities, samples
            actually representative of the mass.”

          • Thank you very much! I hope I can incorporate this into wikipedia and create a more realistic picture.

          • NCY

            andy and tenofalltrades will never accept the JoNP as a source, just a heads up, find another one or don’t bother.
            at the moment the E-cat article has the lugano report in it in a section, which clearly describes the transmutation as it is now understood. This was one of the last things i accomplished before getting blocked from editing CF articles. You could add half a sentence there at the end of the transmutation part.
            anything that rossi says on the subject is a primary source and so won’t be accepted unless reported elsewhere in a reliable source.

    • Obvious

      If you look at the “leaked” SEM-EDS report ( before Lugano) it suggests some particles have the same metal ratios as brazing alloy.
      Potentially some copper could be made, but it would decay to nickel, and not last long enough for analyses to catch it.

  • GreenWin

    More evidence India may lead the way in formal adoption of LENR. Looks like the peer-reviewed Special Section on LENR in Current Science is having its desired impact.

  • GreenWin

    More evidence India may lead the way in formal adoption of LENR. Looks like the peer-reviewed Special Section on LENR in Current Science is having its desired impact.

  • bachcole

    I left a comment correcting the monetary issue.

    • Sanjeev

      Comments are now visible. It seems all 3 of us said the same thing 3 times !

      • bachcole

        They don’t post the comments immediately, so we did say the same thing without knowing it. Must be psychism, I’m sure. (:->)

        Thanks for giving me a heads up so that I could correct my correction. My computer is on it’s last legs, so I don’t flip back and forth too easily without crashing my system.

  • Gerard McEk

    I tink India is probably the most advanced country with regards accepptance of LENR/CF in their scientific community and the mainstream media at this moment. Kudos India!

  • Gerard McEk

    I tink India is probably the most advanced country with regards accepptance of LENR/CF in their scientific community and the mainstream media at this moment. Kudos India!

  • Sanjeev

    Frank, the heading should be “power point” instead of “power plant.”

    • ecatworld

      Thanks, Sanjeev!

  • Sanjeev

    Frank, the heading should be “power point” instead of “power plant.”

    • Tim

      It’s easy to make a PowerPoint slideshow about LENR. It’s harder to make a power plant 🙂

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks, Sanjeev!

  • Sanjeev

    Comments are now visible. It seems all 3 of us said the same thing 3 times !

  • Andy Kumar

    The article says, “Here is the link in case you don’t believe it: ….. The standard delivery time is four months.”
    Is this the new standard of excellence in journalism? Did he call primary sources to verify the delivery time. Did he get any “quotes” from satisfied customers?

    • GreenWin

      As Frank points out: “There are a few out-of-date ideas in his description of the E-Cat (e.g.
      transmutation of nickel to copper), and an inaccurate pricetag on the
      1MW plant ($1.5 billion instead of million)…”
      Inaccuracy, e.g. ignorance of Current Science peer review of its Special Section on LENR — and lack of reading comprehension go hand in hand.

      • Andy Kumar

        As George would say ha! (if you don’t believe, check this website … ha! ha!!)
        What kind of person confuses billion with a million? Enlighten me with what you understand from the article.

        • GreenWin

          What kind of person (or scientist?) claims: “The [Current Science] journal may be peer reviewed but the articles certainly are not. Pretending otherwise is intellectual dishonesty;” (1) without bothering to fact check?? Andy, intellectual dishonesty due to ignorance reflects poorly — even for skeptic pathology.

          (1) Andy Kumar, ECW 3/15/2015

          • there is answer about the peer review process

            http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/news/index.php/News/83-About-Current-Science-LENR-special-section-peer-review-process/

            It was done mostly by physicist, mostly skeptical.

            given the interest and the final publication, you can expect some conversion.

          • Andy Kumar

            Green, So now you are into scholarly footnotes (1). By “the articles certainly are not”, you know what I meant — it was very soft perfunctory “reviews” not worth their name, almost a joke. Reading beyond literal meaning is a higher level of comprehension which in this case has escaped you -:)
            The inventor used to claim that the market will review the product. Let us wait and see IF and when it will.

          • GreenWin

            Andy, you made an error and refuse to acknowledge it. The hole you’re digging is only getting deeper. And you’re losing credibility. Just like mainstream science.

  • GreenWin

    As Frank points out: “There are a few out-of-date ideas in his description of the E-Cat (e.g.
    transmutation of nickel to copper), and an inaccurate pricetag on the
    1MW plant ($1.5 billion instead of million)…”
    Inaccuracy, e.g. ignorance of Current Science peer review of its Special Section on LENR — and lack of reading comprehension go hand in hand.

  • GreenWin

    What kind of person (or scientist?) claims: “The [Current Science] journal may be peer reviewed but the articles certainly are not. Pretending otherwise is intellectual dishonesty;” (1) without bothering to fact check?? Andy, intellectual dishonesty due to ignorance reflects poorly — even for skeptic pathology.

    (1) Andy Kumar, ECW 3/15/2015

  • GreenWin

    Andy, you made an error and refuse to acknowledge it. The hole you’re digging is only getting deeper. And you’re losing credibility. Just like mainstream science.

  • GreenWin

    It is fascinating that India is the first country to officially embrace LENR and Dr. Rossi’s good work. Looks like Russia will be next. Especially if Putin made a stop in Lugano to chat with the Lugano Report science team. Likely China will follow and perhaps Sweden. The very last will be the USA, since to acknowledge Cold Fusion is an admission of corruption and defeat. Or… broad ignorance.

    • bachcole

      Also, as my Filipina wife will be happy to tell you, we (the USA and probably also the UK) are an arrogant nation. We can’t learn anything from those other people.

  • GreenWin

    It is fascinating that India is the first country to officially embrace LENR and Dr. Rossi’s good work. Looks like Russia will be next. Especially if Putin made a stop in Lugano to chat with the Lugano Report science team. Likely China will follow and perhaps Sweden. The very last will be the USA, since to acknowledge Cold Fusion is an admission of corruption and defeat. Or… broad ignorance.

    • bachcole

      Also, as my Filipina wife will be happy to tell you, we (the USA and probably also the UK) are an arrogant nation. We can’t learn anything from those other people.