Mainstream French Science Magazine Science et Vie on Cold Fusion/Rossi

The following information and translated excerpts from Science et Vie have been kindly provided and translated by ECW reader Benjamin Renaut. Copyright does not allow a full translation to be published here, and the magazine does not publish its articles online.

A very mainstream journal in France, Science et Vie (Science and Life), has published in its April 2015 issue an article about the 1MW Plant and LENR in general, including the picture of Rossi and his team inside the plant. The journal is not a scientific publication journal; rather, it is a widely read vulgarisation journal. The article is part of a larger one that describe three possible alternative to the ITER/Tokamak approach to
hot fusion (the larger article title reads: “FUSION: 3 machines défient ITER !” / “FUSION: 3 devices defy the ITER project !”). About the
journal itself, see here:

The French title of the article is: “Cold fusion: a first prototype has already been sold!”

[General infomation about the history of cold fusion and Rossi . . . ]

Bo Höistad, physicist at the Uppsala university and one of the scientists having performed the independent testing, confirms the report’s conclusions but says caution is still required: “LENR would be confirmed only if a second independent team were to reproduce our results”, he said.

‘Jean-Paul Biberian, a retired lecturer at the Aix-Marseille university in France and ardent defender of cold fusion, also advises caution: “While it is true that the high thermal energy and the transmutations witnessed are very interesting, I will be totally convinced only when other researchers reproduce those results”.’

[Asks why there is so much caution . . . Mentions some doubt Lugano test based on methodology flaws and thatn Rossi handled fuel at the Lugano test. . .]

‘Bernard Saoutic, the deputy director for the research institute on magnetic nuclear fusion at the CEA (translater’s note: the Comissariat à l’Energie atomique, the main French public research and control organisation in the area of nuclear energy), remarked: “in order to be qualified as independent, this experiment should have been performed without any intervention by Andrea Rossi and, ideally, the reactor itself should have been built by the independent team based on published instructions”.’

[‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ invoked . . .]

‘A large majority of physicists remain up until now sceptical of the LENR research area. Igniatios Antoniadis, from the theoretical division at CERN in Geneva, despite being the organizer of a cold fusion seminar in 2012 at CERN, declares: “They [cold fusion researchers] tend to announce their results in the press instead of scientific publications, and moreover they tend to give few details on the exact experimental protocols they follow”. Alain Becoulet, director of the institute on magnetic nuclear fusion of the CEA, adds: “The cold fusion community has closed in on itself”.’

‘Despite all this, however, Jean-Paul Biberian stays optimistic: “Various experimental apparatuses have been proposed and the anomalous production of excess heat has been produced tens of times. . .  Our scientific publications are not read widely; we suffer from an almost nonexistent funding”. Jacques Foos, retired director of the laboratory for nuclear sciences of the French national conservatory of arts and crafts, also adds: “This is a regrettable situation given the stakes; especially since a few millions of Euros would be enough to advance the situation”‘

Meanwhile, Andrea Rossi and his e-cat aim to change this. The engineer has one year to present definitely convincing tests to the world. He now has his back to the wall – but also may be about to revolutionize the world of energy production.’

A final remark: this may not be 100% clear in the translation and I don’t know if it is an interesting point, but it seems the author of the article directly communicated with Rossi before writing the article; I translated:
“Selon les informations que Andrea Rossi nous a communiqué” with “Based on the information communicated by Andrea Rossi”, but a more correct translation would be: “Based on the information communicated to us by Andrea Rossi” – the French sentence clearly underlines the fact that they reached Rossi directly.

  • “Selon les informations que Andrea Rossi nous a communiqué” -> according to the informations that AR have given to us.

    anyway beware with journalist 😉 (see in padua with Bill gates)

  • Science et Vie published a story on Rossi and the E-Cat already in March 2012, no 1134, p 132-135 — “A-t-on vraiment réussi à réaliser la fusion froide?”. They asked me for photos. I tried to upload images of those pages but the files were too large. Will try to send them to Frank.

  • Warthog

    “Igniatios Antoniadis, from the theoretical division at CERN in Geneva,
    despite being the organizer of a cold fusion seminar in 2012 at CERN,
    declares: “They [cold fusion researchers] tend to announce their results
    in the press instead of scientific publications, and moreover they tend
    to give few details on the exact experimental protocols they follow”.
    Alain Becoulet, director of the institute on magnetic nuclear fusion of
    the CEA, adds: “The cold fusion community has closed in on itself”.’”

    Ye flipping gods. Just tell the same lies over and over and over. The ONLY “result (announced) in the press” was the original Pons and Fleischmann work. Due to the machinations of Mr Antoniadis and his colleagues, the CF community has been actively PREVENTED from publishing in SOME science publications, and had no other choice than to implement a separate peer review mechanism outside those mainstream journals. Anyone who takes the minutest amount of time reading the published proceedings papers of the ICCF meetings sees immediately the openness of CF researchers.

    Completely disgusting.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      @ Warthog. I tried to mail him your comment @ ([email protected]), but it was returned undeliverable. I tried.

      I’d like to write a letter calling all LENR hard core skeptics idiots, and explain that they hindered scientific progress for 25+ years. Then I’d like a program that would mail this letter out to these idiots every day for 25+ years so future idiots might recall the idiots of today and use skepticism as a tool and not a religion.

  • Frechette

    ” Igniatios Antoniadis, from the theoretical division at CERN in Geneva, despite being the organizer of a cold fusion seminar in 2012 at CERN, declares: “They [cold fusion researchers] tend to announce their results in the press instead of scientific publications..” ”
    What the f_ck please excuse the French but the mainstream scientific publications have been reluctant and down right hostile when it comes to publishing anything having to do with Lenr. It’s been that way for years, yet this clown complains that the researchers who are doing real science haven’t published in his favorite journals. If he were a scientist instead of some poseur he’d be rolling up his sleeves and burning the midnight oil working on the lab bench.

    • Gerard McEk

      I agree! Journalists should be aware of that situation. Since Cold Fusion has been declared Pseudo Science, it has een neglected and ignored by the mainstream media. Good journalists should do their own investigation and try to find the truth, instead of hiding behind the backs of the ivory tower habitants.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson stated that “Pigs will fly before The Journal Nature publishes the Ecat report”.

      I’m tired of making excuses for the daft hard liner scientists who are too consumed with skepticism. I shall just bear it until I can rub it in their faces.

      Skepticism has become a harmful disease that is hurting progress and should be discouraged as a trait among good scientists. It should be replaced by common sense.

      Once Cold Fusion/LENR is realized it will prove that the scientific community was wrong as a whole which should not only be highly disturbing, but should instigate some changes.

      We do not want a system in place that puts us 30 years behind the 8 ball. LENR should have become fruitful in 1990, shortly after Pons/Fleischmann discovered it 26 years ago.

      I also have trouble with the statement, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. How about ordinary proof all around. Proof is proof. Such stupid ideals.

      Tick tock. One day it will happen.

      I’d like to know how well read that journal is. It’s mainstream… That’s a start until everyone cancels their subscription because they kind of endorse LENR a bit.

      • Omega Z

        I Agree. The phrase-
        “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”
        Is a phrase that should be buried & forgotten.
        Extraordinary claims only require Ordinary Proof.
        No More. No Less.

        • LCD

          ordinary proof of extraordinary claims is by definition extraordinary.

          Maybe the saying should be extraordinary claims require proof that can’t be from private companies driven by profits before they ship a product, or the Russians.

          At least it would be more honest.

          • bachcole

            LOL. No, really, LOL. (:->)

            Extraordinary claims require close scrutiny by curious persons who have their feet firmly planted on the ground. I am one of those persons, and the E-Cat has passed my “inspection”. SHT and others have not, , , , , , yet.

      • Frechette

        “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. That’s one of Carl Sagan’s pearls of wisdom which the skeptics have adopted to repeat like a mantra at every opportune moment.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “…Alain Becoulet, director of the institute on magnetic nuclear fusion of the CEA, adds: “The cold fusion community has closed in on itself”…”

    Yeah, I wonder why?

  • Gerrit

    [OT] Europe’s energy transition has placed the nuclear sector at a crossroads, and members of POWER-GEN Europe’s Advisory Board consider the role of nuclear in Europe’s drive towards energy decarbonisation, ahead of the conference and exhibition which will take place in Amsterdam, 9-11 June, 2015

    David Porter, Senior Advisor to the Global Energy team, Navigant: “Nuclear power, while having massive potential, has never been able to distance itself from the perception that it is a ‘political’ technology. But, construction costs and timescales mean that it cannot be financed without a level of stability in policy that the EU and member states find hard to deliver. It remains, however, a technology that offers more than most to meet the challenge of the energy policy ‘trilemma’.
    Nuclear power will remain on the agenda and if we get a break-through in cold fusion, it will be even more important.”

    I am not sure, but I read that last line as a factual statement and not as a sarcastic joke.

  • DocSiders

    Sagan was wrong about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof.
    Extraordinary claims require proof period.
    I wouldn’t mind seeing some proof of LENR. Boil away 1000 gallons of water with the input capable of bringing only 300 gallons of water through the transition temperature to stream.

    Also, running a 1MW (thermal) plant with only 250kW for a year would do it.

    • Sanjeev

      I agree with this and other opinions below on the matter of “extraordinary claims”.

      The truth is, the word extraordinary is extremely subjective, not scientific. Nothing is extraordinary and everything is. For cold fusion researchers and those who attend ICCF regularly or read papers, it is just an ordinary phenomenon which they see everyday.

      With such expression, one gets to deny almost all proofs, because one can always say that this is not the “extraordinary proof” they wanted. The pathoskeps use it to shift the goal posts as soon as the last demanded proof arrives.

      The same behavior is seen when someone says that cold fusionists do not publish their findings in reputed journals. As soon as a paper appears in a journal, it ceases to be “reputed”. They also ignore the fact that in past several “reputed” journals have published such papers. Most of the journals do not publish them because they do not find them published in other journals, and so on…..Thus the comment that CF is closed on itself.

      Same patho-logic goes for patents. “Patents on CF are banned because it is same as perpetual machines”. When shown 100s of CF patent applications – “they are just applications, anyone can apply for patent on even imaginary things”. When someone gets a patent – “any crackpot can get any patent”. When a company gets a patent – “patent does not mean that the invention actually works”. When a big and reputed corporation gets a patent – “they are only trolling or taking a chance, in case it becomes real, which it is not”.

      There are similar moronic excuses for pro-CF articles in msm or when employees of reputed orgs such as NASA say positive things about CF or appear in CF conferences. By definition, it is impossible to prove anything to a closed minded denier. I find it a waste of time.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    Yeah. But anyone confronting the mysteries of creation must make some weird assumptions whether they buy into Catholic/Christian Dogma or attempt to understand the Big Bang Theory. There is no creation theory that makes any sense so even skeptics cannot make sense of it.

    I’m surprised you actually understood what I wrote as many have no clue who Wigner is, etc.

    I am a Soil Engineer though and take part in real science, but it is fun to explore the nature of reality.

    The views expressed in my last post were the same as Niel Bohr. The notion “matter does not exist unless it is observed” (google it) is a popular quantum interpretation called “The Copenhagen Interpretation”.

    I wish I could take credit for it, but it has been a popular interpretation for over half a century.