Rossi on Mainstream Physics and the LENR Community

Andrea Rossi took the opportunity today to hold forth regarding his thoughts about the response of the scientific community to the subject of LENR. His comment here is in response to a question about why the mainstream scientific community has fought against LENR.

Andrea Rossi

First and foremost, many scientists of the “mainstream” Physics community are approaching LENR unbiased after the enormous work that has been done in the last four years, mainly by me and my Team ( honestly and sincerely, without hypocrisy). For example, all the Professors that made the ITP Lugano Report belong to the mainstream as well as the scientists of NASA, Airbus, Lockeed Martin, Boeing, DOE, DOD, MIT, etc. etc, etc that started at various levels a serious R&D program on LENR. This said, the so called LENR community did its best to transform itself into a sect in a ghetto, writing a lot of stupidities ( think to the electron capture saga) among some very good paper ( Mizuno, Ikegami, etc). Most of all, what made ghettized the so called LENR community is the attitude to write a lot, talk a lot vociferate the most, working and studying as less as possible and over all not spend their own money to make R&D, but only search for money of others ( which shows that they are the first not to believe to what they say; I do not know of any of them who sold his house to finance themselves, as i did). I calculated in 1:100 the mean ratio between pages of Physics studied and pages of Physics written by most of the wannabe scientist self defined “nuclear physicists” inside the so called “LENR” community. As my friend Sergio Focardi said many times: ” The problem is that they are searching for new physics without studying the existing physics before”.
Warm Regards,

It’s interesting here to see Rossi defend mainstream science, and show little respect towards the LENR community in general (he notes some exceptions, too). Rossi has a strong interest in physics (he mentions studying it for two hours each day is one of his habits), and shows here that he falls firmly in the mainstream camp when it comes to LENR, seeing no need for new physics to explain the Rossi Effect. Hopefully we’ll be able to get an idea of his theoretical thinking when the paper he has been talking about writing finally gets published. The ‘work, not words’ theme is typical of Rossi.

This post may provide on reason why Rossi has so far avoided participating in any of the LENR conferences that have been held over the years.

  • I agree with Rossi.
    We now see how difficult it is to see even a small LENR effect.
    The most needless blabla is about business models for LENR, which is way too early and doesn’t help in any way.

    • Alain Samoun

      “We need people like the MFMP guys who DO, not talk.”
      Not only they talk but also they show…

      • Mats002

        Yes, that is great – Live Open Science!

  • Gerard McEk

    First of all I would say that he thinks that the ‘Mainstream Physics
    community’ is already approaching LENR in a much more accepting way. For
    me that is a good sign and tells me that he receives a lot of
    appreciation of that community.
    Secondly Andrea believes that the
    explanation of LENR can be found in the ‘standard physics’. I am quite
    curious to know how he believes the transmutation and forming of elements like
    Helium takes place. I do hope the publication of his ‘Rossi Effect’ report
    arrives soon in a ‘Mainstream’ Scientific Magazine.

    • Omega Z

      I have read articles by those who work at CERN & other institutions.

      I find some of what they say very interesting such as-
      The Standard Physics Model is incomplete.
      And Should we discover XYZ then we would obviously have to rewrite the laws of physics & at the very least be in line for a major revision.

      They seem quite willy nilly about the Standard Physics Model as long as it is them stating it. They only become inflamed if it should come from outside their little niches.

  • kdk

    Well, that’s a selective reading of history.

  • Mats002

    Ehem, did not Mr R just violate one or two of the commenting rules? On the other hand it was not written in the comment section 😉

    • artefact

      Mr. Mills loves to do that also.

  • Obvious

    99% inspiration and 1% perspiration, instead of the other way around.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Quite interesting. I think NEAR everyone here admits that the general science community has failed the public BIG TIME on this issue.

    Rossi considers himself part of the science and technology community, and thus while many lawyers are terrible, you as a general rule don’t see a good lawyer` running down their own profession.

    Rossi is much the same. Kind of a catch 22 to land blast the very same community one is supposedly part of. And also now Rossi desperate needs support of that science community for patent granting.

    The simple matter is however is that the science community FAILED the public big time in how the P&F fiasco unfolded. And WORSE is for the last 25+ years was how political correctness and political gains let alone financial gains were put over that of good science.

    I think Rossi is MUCH aware of the public “egg” and backlash that will occur as LENR breaks out.

    As for having to change the standard physical model? I see nothing that suggest this need to be done. A number of physicists and scientists have come up with rather reasonable explains of LENR. That include Dr. McKubre, and others. (and this ALSO include Rossi and the physicists he been consulting with).

    The backlash against the science community has nothing to do with some perceived “threat” to the standard physics model, but only how LENR, P&F and others were simply thrown under the bus. Heat was being observed. In the face of observations (such as anyone with a telescope could figure out planets revolve around the sun, or in the case of LENR – they were observing heat).

    I think its important to make keep in mind that preconceived notions in the face of observations is where the science community failed – not due to some threat to the standard physics model.

    The fact that planets go around the sun, or LENR was producing heat does not suggest that such observations challenge the standard physics model. However such observations certainly challenged those unwilling to accept observations over that of authority based science.

    As I stated, we have the EXACT same siltation in regards to global warming. We not seen any global warming for over 18 years now, and yet in the same time frame we released more CO2 then going back to pre-WWII days! (in fact much close to the start of the 1900’s). The claims of man’s CO2 driving temperatures at rates claimed by the science community don’t fit what we are experiencing or by simple observation when we look out the window.

    I for one will MUCH use the issue of LENR as a flash point to beat the crap out of the science community that choose political motivations over that of doing the right thing and doing good science.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada
    [email protected]

  • Mats002

    Hi John, I am not sure what you say here. You are also in the LENR ‘business’? And no one else than AR has ‘the goods’?

  • Mytakeis

    How could he have progressed if not with diligent adherence to a try, try, and try again discipline, ingrained in him, as his mode of researching. I give the man all the credit perseverance to a successful goal entails.

  • Surveilz

    I suspect you would of had a much different answer had you asked on the day prior to putting his house on the line. Today, it’s full steam ahead without having to worry about where the next meal will come from. I wish him the very best, but my thoughts are mostly with the replication attempts now.

  • theBuckWheat

    When a person proposes a new way that has never been credibly observed before, the weight of proof is on him. That is healthy however when institutions and governments get involved, they can be a fatal roadblock. There is no better example than the issue of the USPTO and their approach to Rossi’s patent application. Governments by their very nature have monopolies and that is why we must foster ways for people like Rossi to thrive and be successful before their breakthroughs can be sufficiently documented that they attain wide acceptance. Rossi is due the same protection as anyone else.

    • Freethinker

      Agree. The USPTO response had very antagonizing an subjective wording. They showed their face well enough. Then again the patent is likely too weak, and it will take some more battling before it can be secured. If that is in fact the end game.

  • GreenWin

    Should we compare the progress made by LENR/Cold Fusion in the last four years to the 65 year ZERO useful Watts money pit called “Hot Fusion?”

  • Alain Samoun

    Maybe Rossi starts to feel the heat from these bench of “the so called LENR community amateurs” like MFMP and Parkhomov and he is looking for some support from the dark side? Good luck to him!

  • Omega Z

    Thomas Clarke

    LENR is thought of in such that-
    Replications will help only to a point.
    No number of 3rd party tests will be accepted as they all will have flaws no matter how improbable. Those involved just become a part of the scam. That pie is getting sliced mighty thin.

    Hagelstein is just 1 of several giving serious thought to the theory tho none of them will be accepted.

    Only a successful commercial product will finally break down the walls & even then there will be those who will still claim the world is flat.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Lockheed Martin
    Did he let the Hot-Cat out of the bag?

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Are they working on a LENR powered electrogravitic propulsion system?

      • Alan DeAngelis

        If excess electrons in a capacitor make a gravity well (TT Brown effect), could excess protons (or deuterons) in a lattice make a gravity hill causing them to fuse?

        Also see Ben Rich”s (former Head of Lockheed Skunk Works) quote at 2:10

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Tadahiko Mizuno got LENRs to take place in ceramic proton conductors with deuterium.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          If this seems too far fetched, remember that 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

    • Sanjeev

      I find that strange too.
      Did he confused LM’s plan to solve hot fusion in 10 years as LENR R&D ? Or is LM actually doing LENR R&D ?

  • builditnow

    I agree that Rossi’s approach in many respects, including physics, looks the best for him, Industrial Heat LLC and potentially LENR / Cold Fusion itself.

    Right now it could be a significant advantage for Rossi to have more time to finish up his products before patents are issued and he is ready with a UL (and world wide) approval to sell. When the time comes, Rossi will have patents that last 20 years from the start of production (almost unheard of for patents as usually there are unproductive years between when a patent is issued and production), factories ready to go. Rossi needs, as part of this, to gain acceptance from the “mainstream scientists”. He needs to be able to talk mainstream physics and science to these people.

    At that point, the many “mainstream scientists” will come on board. They will first want to fit LENR, as closely as possible, into the existing theories. Only if it cannot fit, will other possibilities be taken seriously.

    Rossi will be the first multi-trillionaire and there will be a economic boom and social boom like never before and Rossi could even be recognized with a Nobel prize for physics.

    Meantime, it’s a delay for us in the “LENR Community”, so, let’s get to work in the garage and make our own hot cats. I’d like one to heat the hot tub for a start and work up from there … 🙂

    • Omega Z

      Actually, Rossi will only get a tiny fraction of a percent, but he will be quite wealthy.

  • Axil Axil

    There is a 4th way that the open source community is unintentionally working towards. That is the rendering of a commonly available widely dispersed theory and experimental know how that anyone world wide could access and choose freely to use as they will for any purpose whatsoever whether commercial or academic. If such open source technology is useful and relevant to the world’s population in the widest range of its possible application, its wide spread use and application by all mankind will doubtless open the minds and harden hearts of the gatekeepers of science.

  • GreenWin

    So, by using an obscure mathematician’s fanciful ZERO – we should consider 65 years of hot fusion failure and $250B tax dollars a useful exercise in… what? BSB ?? (Big Science Bamboozles.) Andy, you are like the carnival barker who hisses, “Sure you lost a buck. Just put in another and you’ll get both back!”

    • Sanjeev

      Big news !
      Happened sooner than expected.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      I don’t understand the notation. 7Li4 shouldn’t that be 7Li3?
      I’ll reread is slowly tonight when I get home.

  • fritz194

    I´m quite confident that LENR effect happens within already known physics – the problem is that there are 3 or more disciplines involved – which makes it even more complicated. You have an effect with “nuclear” outcome (just refering to the fact that only “nuclear” effects can have that energy balance) based on condensed matter physics and plasmonic surfaces – with electrochemical formation and electrodynamic mutual reaction. Because of a lacking interdisciplinary approach – every expert involved may judge the outcome as “not possible”. Instead of an interdisciplinary approach – you can study the effect as an isolated phenomenon to investigate the mutual dependencies. This approach needs a rock solid way to reproduce the effect. (which is another problem because every discipline will do that in different ways, introducing its own assumptions known for this discipline).
    If you have such tight control on the effect (and there are only few people as Rossi) – than it should be easier to align the observed phenomenon with at least one discipline – which would give the chance to discover somewhat missing correlations with other disciplines. The outcome will be hopefully “new science” in a way that we get a clear picture how micro-scale effects are interlinked.
    Right now we have very specialized disciplines with incompatible practice – and thats the point why LENR effect is so difficult to pin down.

    • fritz194

      … and Rossi did this first step by uploading the preprint…
      On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production by the “E-Cat”
      The lack of any gamma radiation is a good point to start with.

      • Hi all

        Actually this is ambiguous, some low level gamma is predicted in certain circumstances and has been observed by MFMP and others, and the conclusion of the paper says:

        “… Clarification of precise mechanisms will undoubtedly require measurements of low-level gamma radiation within LENR systems to establish unambiguously which quantum states of which nucleons in which isotopes are involved.”

        Kind Regards walker

  • Josh G

    “Hagelstein is the only serious theorist tackling the “difficult” nature of LENR experimental observations. If there is some nuclear transformation, it is not nuclear transformation as we know it, and squaring this circle to find a mechanism to remove expected reaction products is very hard.”

    What is your assessment of the paper Cook and Rossi just posted to arxiv? They draw an analogy to the well-known Mossbauer effect.

    Also, chapter 9 of Cook’s 2010 book *Model of the Atomic Nucleus* is devoted to LENR and applies the lattice version of the Independent Particle Model to understanding the results of other LENR experiments:

  • oloap88

    this guy is a genius.
    If he really has something going on, well he would probably challenge any o the great scientific mind of the past, in 50 years time he might be more important tha Da Vinci or Newton.
    If is hoax, well he has my respect anyway.
    Every time he opens his mouth he manages to leave me thinking till the next comment.
    What he is doing here imho is pure PR.
    He still needs an IP to safely market the product, so it would be unwise at best to antagonize the people he needs to prove himself right.
    No Offense guys, but the LENR comunity at this stage is not nearly as important, we can forgive it if is worth the mainstream acceptance of cold fusion.
    and yes i think he is right none of us ever stood on the front line and risked his own money on it.

  • GordonDocherty

    When he says: “The problem is that they are searching for new physics without studying the existing physics before”, he is not saying there is no new physics. To quote from the upcoming paper, written by Norman D. Cook and Andrea Rossi:

    “We use the lattice version of the independent-particle model (IPM) of nuclear theory to show how the geometrical structure of isotopes indicate nuclear reactions that are not predicted in the conventional version of the IPM. Finally, we speculate on similar mechanisms that may be involved in other low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). ”

    “not predicted” and “speculate” are hardly words congruent with “no new physics”. Looking further on, we see:

    “Although progress has been made in defining the solid-state, chemical and electromagnetic field properties of the nuclear active environment (NAE), the specifically nuclear aspects of the NAE have not generally been addressed. Here, we argue that femtometer-level LENR can occur in isotopes with low-lying excited-states, provided that an appropriate, Angstrom-level molecular environment has been created.”

    – and:

    “Although various aspects of the mathematical identity between the shell and lattice models have frequently been published in the physics literature, the lattice model itself has been dismissed as a
    “lucky” reproduction of the symmetries of the shell model and has had little impact on nuclear theorizing, in general. The fact remains, however, that the lattice and gaseous-phase versions of the IPM reproduce the same patterns of observable spin and parity (Jπ) values based upon very different assumptions concerning the “point” or “space-occupying” structure of the nucleons themselves. Here, we consider the lattice IPM to be a realistic alternative to the gaseous-phase IPM, and elaborate on its implications in relation to LENR phenomena.”

    So, new physics, expressed using existing nomenclature but in new ways. The underlying concepts, however, and especially the importance of geometry, spin and energy transfer remain at the core – and this is where imagination is required, no matter what – even “incorrect” ideas may light the way to “correct” ones.

    I suspect his big problems are with Widom-Larsen and Mills Hydrino theories: he is particularly fixing his attention on Lithium-7 + hydrogen ion (proton) such that the two combine to create two Helium nucleii – that is, two Alpha particles, the hydrogen ion likely coming from the mouse, the lithium being present in the cat. So, perhaps a bit of misdirection… (BTW, the book Hot-Cat 2.0: How last generation E-Cats are made makes for an excellent read)

    • GordonDocherty

      Interestingly, in the book “Hot-Cat 2.0: How last generation E-Cats are made”, Roberto Ventola and Vesla Nikolova point out that if the charge at the center of the Lugano hot-cat was the source of the heat, given the surface of the device was at 1250C, the center of the reactor would need to be at 1750C, well above the melting point of Nickel. Additionally, the Lugano device was a combined Cat/Mouse device in design, only with the Mouse using the same charge as the Cat, so creating a reactor that did not run in self-sustain mode (sub-critical stimuli from the Mouse coupled via “LENR” to the main sub-critical reaction in the Cat). There is therefore more going on than is described in the Cook/Rossi paper, with more reactions likely than are covered there – like, for example, how does the Mouse “couple with” / stimulate the Cat when the two are, in many ways, separate?

  • bkrharold

    I think Rossi is being a bit hard on those folks who are grounded in Physics, and are able to speculate about possible LENR mechanisms. It is an exquisite puzzle, that is just itching to be solved. Having said that I couldn’t suppress a slight smile at his impatience with them, talking a lot and doing nothing. Perhaps he is more impressed by the real doers, the MFMP project and Parkhamov?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    What numbers?