LENR and the Long March into Forgetfulness (Axil Axil)

The following post has been submitted by Axil Axil

From the times of Tesla in the 1890s, Cold fusion has been discovered and then forgotten and then later rediscovered in a tragic cycle of frustration and forgetfulness. Tesla may have been the first. There is a persistent urban legend about Nikola Tesla. The prolific Serbian inventor who claimed that his greatest achievement, the achievement that he was most proud of, was not alternating current or the radio, but a high voltage tube which could produce energy and transmute materials. This story has usually been dismissed as nonsense, a product of a demented mind. Now in the light of our emerging LENR experience, this fantastic tale might well have been true after all.

Tesla claimed “nature has stored up in the universe infinite energy” (Columbia College lecture. New York. May 20, 1891). Tesla demonstrated the “carbon button lamp” a spherical gas discharge device in public lectures (London 1892, then at Philadelphia 1893, vs. Patent 4,546.22118911). Those who witnessed this wonder exclaimed “how is he doing that?” Others failed to believe the witness of their own eyes. “There was a stampede in the two upper galleries and they all rushed out. They thought it was some part of the devil’s work.”

Tesla was only the first of many. There then came Henry Moray, Joe Papp, Janos Jakkel, Edwin Gray, Ken Shoulders…All these men and many more have discovered LENR and let this precious secret pass through their fingers like the grains of sand through an hour glass, as the fleeting days of their lives. Generation after generation the secrets of cold fusion have appeared and been eventually forgotten. Mostly, because these men of invention did not understand cold fusion in the least, but some because of greed and the desire for fame and acclaim, but almost all because they failed to share their knowledge to keep those precious hard won insights alive after these special men were gone.

Cold fusion is more than just the production of energy, this mysterious mechanism entails its miracles too. These processes are not explicable by our current natural or scientific laws. Such events can only be attributed to some unknown science far beyond the mind of man whose understanding would entail insight into the very essence of the universe. These miracles are the production of energy without the associated generation of gamma radiation and radioactive isotopes. And even more perplexing is that this lack of nuclear byproduct are a sometimes thing where when the conditions are just right, the evidence for the nuclear nature of LENR comes plainly through.

LENR can occur in the guts of chickens and on the skins of bacteria. Evolution has shrewdly made use of LENR to keep alive the creatures that nature has invented. LENR can be applied to radioactive wastes to speed up its rate in varying degrees almost as if LENR holds the key to the control of time itself.

We now see a crack in the perpetual cycle of lost opportunity, a chance for the first time to get LENR to hold fast and become a part of the fabric of civilization. Let us all try to do our part in keeping the truth of LENR alive both now and into our future.

Dr. Nikola Tesla famously said: “Of all the frictional resistance, the one that most retards human movement is ignorance, what Buddha called ‘the greatest evil in the world’. The friction which results from ignorance can be reduced only by the spread of knowledge and the unification of the heterogeneous elements of humanity. No effort could be better spent.”

Axil Axil

  • Nigel Appleton

    “LENR can occur in the guts of chickens and on the skins of bacteria.”

    Citations?

    • ecatworld

      Here are some references to biological transmutations:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corentin_Louis_Kervran

      • Nigel Appleton

        That link leads to material about Corentin Louis Kervran.

        No more need be said.

        • GordonDocherty

          There was once a very devout country full of intelligent men who dismissed the messages of a man because he spent time with prostitutes and tax collectors, and was himself only a carpenter’s son.

          There was also once a country full of philosophers and thinkers who dismissed the ramblings of a man because he was, after all, only a corporal.

          As these two examples show, new ideas are seldom delivered by those with an interest in preserving the status quo.

          In other words, look to understand what is being said, and whether it could make sense, not who is saying it, as those “in authority” are unlikely to want to understand a change that would undermine their very authority if true. At the end of the day, your very existence may one day depend on it.

          Now, returning to nickel-hydrogen(-lithium) or “LENR-plus”, which has dismissed by some as a hoax, there is some compelling evidence (if not delivered by “a big name”) that transmutations in nature do occur.

          Still, if you are someone who still refuses to take that first step, then maybe this announcement made back in August 2014 :

          http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/splitter-clean-fuel-082014.html

          and then again, in more detail, last week

          http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/june/water-splitter-catalyst-062315.html

          may be of interest – as these announcements by Stamford University present an electrolysis cell that relies on many of the same elements, features and characteristics as seen in LENR cells. To quote:

          ‘To find catalytic material suitable for both electrodes, the Stanford
          team borrowed a technique used in battery research called
          lithium-induced electrochemical tuning. The idea is to use lithium ions
          to chemically break the metal oxide catalyst into smaller and smaller
          pieces….”Breaking down metal oxide into tiny particles increases its surface area and exposes lots of ultra-small, interconnected grain boundaries that become active sites for the water-splitting catalytic reaction,” Cui said. “This process creates tiny particles that are strongly connected, so the catalyst has very good electrical conductivity and stability.” Wang used electrochemical tuning – putting lithium in, taking lithium out – to test the catalytic potential of several metal oxides. “Haotian eventually discovered that nickel-iron oxide is a world-record performing material that can catalyze both the hydrogen and the oxygen reaction,” Cui said. “No other catalyst can do this with such great performance.” ‘

          Such observations are, indeed, interesting given what has previously been discussed here and elsewhere pertaining to current “LENR plus” systems.

        • Axil Axil

          I had 50 posts on http://scienceblogs.com/starts.. .let’s talk about them or have we already done so on that blog.

  • Nigel Appleton

    “LENR can occur in the guts of chickens and on the skins of bacteria.”

    Citations?

    • Frank Acland

      Here are some references to biological transmutations:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corentin_Louis_Kervran

      • Nigel Appleton

        That link leads to material about Corentin Louis Kervran.

        No more need be said.

        • GordonDocherty

          There was once a very devout country full of intelligent men who dismissed the messages of a man because he spent time with prostitutes and tax collectors, and was himself only a carpenter’s son.

          There was also once a country full of philosophers and thinkers who dismissed the ramblings of a man because he was, after all, only a corporal.

          As these two examples show, new ideas are seldom delivered by those with an interest in preserving the status quo.

          In other words, look to understand what is being said, and whether it could make sense, for good or ill, not who is saying it, as those “in authority” are unlikely to want to understand a change that would undermine their very authority if true or accepted.

          At the end of the day, your very existence may one day depend on listening to new ideas – however “far out” they may at first appear.

          Now, returning to nickel-hydrogen(-lithium) or “LENR-plus”, which has previously been vehemently dismissed by some as a hoax or, worse yet, a fraud, then maybe this announcement made back in August 2014 :

          http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/splitter-clean-fuel-082014.html

          and then again, in more detail, last week

          http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/june/water-splitter-catalyst-062315.html

          may be of some interest – as these announcements by Stamford University explain, the electrolysis cell discussed in those announcements relies on many of the same elements, features and characteristics as seen in LENR cells. To quote:

          ‘To find catalytic material suitable for both electrodes, the Stanford
          team borrowed a technique used in battery research called
          lithium-induced electrochemical tuning. The idea is to use lithium ions
          to chemically break the metal oxide catalyst into smaller and smaller
          pieces….”Breaking down metal oxide into tiny particles increases its surface area and exposes lots of ultra-small, interconnected grain boundaries that become active sites for the water-splitting catalytic reaction,” Cui said. “This process creates tiny particles that are strongly connected, so the catalyst has very good electrical conductivity and stability.” Wang used electrochemical tuning – putting lithium in, taking lithium out – to test the catalytic potential of several metal oxides. “Haotian eventually discovered that nickel-iron oxide is a world-record performing material that can catalyze both the hydrogen and the oxygen reaction,” Cui said. “No other catalyst can do this with such great performance.” ‘

          Such observations are, indeed, interesting given what has previously been discussed here and elsewhere pertaining to current “LENR plus” systems.

          Likewise, there is evidence – even if not delivered by “a big name” – that transmutations in nature do occur. So, instead of making cutting remarks clearly aimed at stifling discussion, how about opening up to new messages and new possibilities, and perhaps doing some research to expand the mind…

          • bachcole

            “At the end of the day, your very existence may one day depend on it.” Your very existence and well being does depend upon it with regard to food and lifestyle and the things that you hear from corporations whose interests are to keep you eating added sugar and other garbage diets.

  • bachcole

    Only Buddha was not talking about worldly ignorance, like the ignorance that says that LENR is impossible. He was talking about the ignorance that mostly deeply impacts human happiness, spiritual ignorance, like the ignorance that fails to understand that craving is the fundamental cause of all of life’s unhappiness. Craving is so insidious that it will cause many reading this to deny that it is the fundamental cause of all of life’s misery.

  • georgehants

    It seems Mr. Axil Axil certainly agrees with what I have been repeating on these pages for years now.
    Will Cold Fusion be the catalyst that changes the failures of science up to the second decade of the 21st century?
    Will it lead to an Enlightenment?

  • georgehants

    It seems Mr. Axil Axil certainly agrees with what I have been repeating on these pages for years now.
    Will Cold Fusion be the catalyst that changes the failures of science up to the second decade of the 21st century?
    Will it lead to an Enlightenment?

    • bachcole

      Perhaps the purpose of we the peanut gallery is to push on to the collective consciousness that the failure of science to accept LENR is just exactly like the failure of science to accept a lot of things, like homeopathy, the importance of nutrition, etc. etc. This means that our roll in this drama has not yet even begun. We are merely sharpening up our intellectual tools for when LENR becomes accepted and we have to tell people, “Hey, this is not an isolated case of science being stupidly narrow minded.”

      “There is no evidence for . . . ” does NOT mean “It does not exist.”

    • f sedei

      Yes. And Andrea Rossi has kick started it and making it happen.

  • Warthog

    Axil:

    Your list should include Irving Langmuir as well. In his work at GE on finding a fill gas for the light bulb, he found experimental evidence of excess heat with the tungsten/hydrogen system. He corresponded with Niels Bohr about it and Bohr told him it “was impossible”…..so Langmuir dropped further work into the effect. Major missed opportunity.

  • jousterusa

    An excellent and superbly written call to action! Please share it with members of Congress and the swarm of presidential candidates searching for an issue that will distinguish them from the est.

    • Nigel Appleton

      Bachcole, I couldn’t be happier that you think homeopathy worked for you.
      The placebo effect is powerful and interesting.

      Two reminders:

      1. “Anecdotes” is NOT the plural of “datum”
      2.The easiest person to fool is yourself.

      • bachcole

        But anecdotes are the beginning of people looking into possibilities. Right now, for millions of people, what Rossi and the professors have said is nothing more than anecdotal. But people with your attitude have shut down Rossi and retarded progress. Yours is a closed mind that just happened to get lucky and be in the right place at the right time to see that cold fusion really is real. But your attitude is the freaking problem, not the solution.

        You fancy that you are some kind of master of knowing, of epistemology, that you have a monopoly on the truth or at least the means to the truth, sort of like ISIS and the Nazis have a monopoly on the truth. This is such arrogance.

        You believe that homeopathy MUST necessarily be the placebo effect since you cannot see the mechanism. But you also cannot explain consciousness, yet you are it and you assume it all day long, 24/7/365.

        You are a materialist. Materialism does not disprove homeopathy; homeopathy disproves materialism.

        Since to you “know” homeopathy cannot be true, it must necessarily be the placebo effect. So when bachcole comes along and says that it has worked for him for the past 45 years, then your estimate of the power of placebo enlarges. Placebo becomes a means for denying anything that you can’t understand. This is how your close-mindedness works.

        Open mindedness does NOT mean that one believes everything. Believing everything is as much of an addiction to certainty as your type of close mindedness. Open mindedness means that one is OK with uncertainty and can tolerate it without insulting others and without coming to conclusions. The true believer and the skeptopath are really the same; they are both uncomfortable with uncertainty, and they victimize everyone else with their small mindedness.

        • Nigel Appleton

          I don’t see that posting my personal opinions are “victimising” anyone; and I doubt you are susceptible to changing your mind, so I’m not trying.

          Which bit do you feel insulted by? You should hear the insults I get from colleagues when I defend Rossi’s work!

          Let me ask – have you read Montagnier’s paper on electromagnetic signatures in DNA? Do you know anything about the pitfalls of doing PCR on very short DNA sequences? Do you know what happens if a lab gets even the smallest amount of amplicon contamination?

          It is NOT scientific, is sketchy, and lacks essential detail. Nobody has reproduced his results

          It is a shame that the work of Rossi, and its replications (however marginal) is latched onto by the homeopaths, chemtrail believers, urine therapy followers, structured water enthusiasts and their ilk as vindication of their utterly evidence-free beliefs.

          I see that this is not the forum I’d expected – I had hoped for more science and less magical thinking

          Incidentally, bachcole (and everybody), I strongly recommend you catch up with the BBC’s Horizon programme on “The Power of the Placebo” Absolutely fascinating.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      This guy may no be as well educated as the people you linked to but I thought I’d add him to the list.
      “Nuclear and high energy physicists seem to be unaware of the fact that phenomena in materials are not always as reproducible as are phenomena in their field. Transistors are
      a good example of variability in solid state devices.”
      -Brian Josephson
      http://coldfusionnow.org/michio-kaku-informed-on-new-developments-in-cold-fusion/
      (see his comment)

  • jousterusa

    An excellent and superbly written call to action! Please share it with members of Congress and the swarm of presidential candidates searching for an issue that will distinguish them from the est.

    • IgnoranceBeater

      Are we reading the same thing?

  • Billy Jackson

    I like that. Well said Mr Axil.

    • bachcole

      I agree.

  • MasterBlaster7

    Nah…I don’t think Tesla stumbled across LENR. He was very much a genius of his time but his reach exceeded his grasp in many areas. Just take a look at his criticism of Einstein.

    Tesla was critical of Einstein’s relativity work, calling it:
    a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and
    makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar
    clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king … its
    exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than
    scientists ..

    Tesla also argued:

    I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it
    can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has
    properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own
    making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling
    the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes
    curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I,
    for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view. ‘

    Not sure what his view on Quantum Mechanics was but I bet it was similar. I think these (below) are a better example of stumbling across LENR early on…

    1909 : While working at General Electric the Nobel
    Chemist Irving Langmuir noted an excess of heat production in work he
    was doing on atomic hydrogen plasmas created between tungsten
    electrodes. Physicist Neils Bohr insisted that Langmuir’s results could
    not be correct since they violated conservation of energy and persuaded
    Langmuir that publishing them would ruin his career.
    1922 : Wendt and Irion reported nuclear reactions in
    exploding wires. The transmuted nuclear products emerged after a large
    current pulse was passed through a Tungsten wire filament which
    exploded.
    1926 : Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters in Berlin first claim to
    have observed the fusion of hydrogen under pressure to form helium in
    finely divided palladium metal. The following year they retract the report as mistaken.
    1927 : Swedish scientist John Tandberg proposes using
    electrolysis to force hydrogen into palladium metal. He was denied a
    patent on cold fusion using this method.

    • Billy Jackson

      you also have to take into account that despite Tesla’s intelligence he still was limited to the knowledge base available to his time. While he added to that base.. what they knew then vs now may alter the way he looked at things. It leaves you to ponder what our great grand kids will think of our findings a 100 years from now..

      I personally think we still have massive amounts of potential learning ahead of us.. i would dare say entire fields that we have yet to explore lay in wait for those who dare to push the frontiers of what we know and the fortitude to challenge what we think we know.

      • Mats002

        I like to think that all here doing a collective effort to push the frontiers of what we know. We do dare challange what we think we know. History shows that discoverys of what really IS can be ignored by society. That is why experimenters need an audience – just like sport professionals – to amplify their achievments for all to see. I am here because I believe my peanut presence adds to a stronger outcome. I say Live Open Science is a sport with a purpose.

    • J Storrs Hall
      • GreenWin

        “Men are April when they woo, December when they wed.” William Shakespeare

        • Axil Axil

          I have, myself, full confidence that if all here do their duty to protect this truth, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are surely being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend this precious principle and legacy of honesty; to ride out the storm of hypocrisy, and to outlast the menace of abasement, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. We here of common purpose being linked together in this noble cause and in the pressing need of all mankind, we will with vigor uphold this principle of unselfish honesty in the fullest purity of its noble form, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of our strength we shall go on to the end with success as the prize, we shall fight in the classroom, we shall contest in the blogs and in the office, we shall argue with growing confidence and growing strength on the laboratory floor, we shall defend our integrity, whatever the cost may be in enduring recrimination, we shall fight no matter the insults that we suffer; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this noble concept or a large part of it were subjugated and starved, then in God’s good time, the New World we want to inspire, will be born in all its power and might, stepping forth to the rescue in the full confidence and in good conscience to liberate a new and noble future.

  • MasterBlaster7

    Nah…I don’t think Tesla stumbled across LENR. He was very much a genius of his time but his reach exceeded his grasp in many areas. Just take a look at his criticism of Einstein.

    Tesla was critical of Einstein’s relativity work, calling it:
    a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and
    makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar
    clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king … its
    exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than
    scientists ..

    Tesla also argued:

    I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it
    can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has
    properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own
    making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling
    the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes
    curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I,
    for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view. ‘

    Not sure what his view on Quantum Mechanics was but I bet it was similar. I think these (below) are a better example of stumbling across LENR early on…

    1909 : While working at General Electric the Nobel
    Chemist Irving Langmuir noted an excess of heat production in work he
    was doing on atomic hydrogen plasmas created between tungsten
    electrodes. Physicist Neils Bohr insisted that Langmuir’s results could
    not be correct since they violated conservation of energy and persuaded
    Langmuir that publishing them would ruin his career.
    1922 : Wendt and Irion reported nuclear reactions in
    exploding wires. The transmuted nuclear products emerged after a large
    current pulse was passed through a Tungsten wire filament which
    exploded.
    1926 : Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters in Berlin first claim to
    have observed the fusion of hydrogen under pressure to form helium in
    finely divided palladium metal. The following year they retract the report as mistaken.
    1927 : Swedish scientist John Tandberg proposes using
    electrolysis to force hydrogen into palladium metal. He was denied a
    patent on cold fusion using this method.

    Just so you know. I really like Tesla. But I think that LENR and Tesla is a bridge too far.

    • Billy Jackson

      you also have to take into account that despite Tesla’s intelligence he still was limited to the knowledge base available to his time. While he added to that base.. what they knew then vs now may alter the way he looked at things. It leaves you to ponder what our great grand kids will think of our findings a 100 years from now..

      I personally think we still have massive amounts of potential learning ahead of us.. i would dare say entire fields that we have yet to explore lay in wait for those who dare to push the frontiers of what we know and the fortitude to challenge what we think we know.

      • Mats002

        I like to think that all here doing a collective effort to push the frontiers of what we know. We do dare challange what we think we know. History shows that discoverys of what really IS can be ignored by society. That is why experimenters need an audience – just like sport professionals – to amplify their achievments for all to see. I am here because I believe my peanut presence adds to a stronger outcome. I say Live Open Science is a sport with a purpose.

    • J Storrs Hall

      See also Sternglass/Einstein:
      http://nautil.us/issue/7/waste/einsteins-lost-hypothesis

      Second paragraph:
      What Sternglass didn’t know is that his visit to Einstein would set off a chain of correspondence, involving both an unpublished experiment (his) and an unpublished hypothesis (Einstein’s) that together may constitute one of the century’s most important disregarded pieces of science. The reason why the science was overlooked is plain enough: It was at least a generation ahead of its time. Now, more than half a century later, the work is being re-examined, with potentially profound implications for sustainable energy production. For Sternglass was to discover how to create free neutrons with household wall socket evergy levels—and Einstein was to explain why.

  • Oystein Lande

    “…high voltage tube which could produce energy and transmute materials” – interesting, reminds me of glow discharge LENR. Any reference to where and when he said this?

  • Nigel Appleton

    Granted, “deluded” was the wrong term for Newton. Unproductive or futile would be better.

    Sure, there is every reason to pursue LENR. We have good observations, backed up by extensive objective instrument readings. There have been credible replications. There are even glimmerings of theories that are not totally incompatible with our current understanding of physics.

    Would that we could say the same of the piffle that is astrology, or the twaddle that is homeopathy.

    • georgehants

      Nigel are you some kind of a scientist?
      When did you decide Cold Fusion was worth following, when P&F made their first announcement I expect?
      Do you ever read Evidence or just rely on your own or other “opinions”?
      The below link is”piffle” according to your personal god who advises you what is genuine and not I suppose?
      Lovely to have such an expert on page that does not have to worry about Evidence just religious belief.
      ——–
      DNA Sequence Reconstituted from Water Memory?
      http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DNA_sequence_reconstituted_from_Water_Memory.php

      • Nigel Appleton

        I’ve been in science all my working life. Solid, evidence -based science.
        I have no gods, personal or otherwise. Iother to educate myself in it. did not dismiss P&F’s work – I was interested, but was too busy at the time to follow it up. I believe LENR has great potential, although I would dearly like to see more replications.

        And yes, the link you gave is piffle, like most other stuff published in that woo-rag

        • georgehants

          Well you certainly have all the attributes of the average scientist.
          So you did not dismiss P&F’s work but your god tells you to dismiss the scientific Research in the link.
          Very scientific.

          • Omega Z

            The U.S. Military was researching LENR in the 50’s & 60’s. They scoured the world for information on anomalous heat some of which originated to the 1700’s. I would note that all the materials involved with LENR today were thoroughly researched at extreme temps. That they may have such technology locked away would not surprise At All.

            That Tesla was interested does not surprise me.
            As to things discovered & apparently lost/forgotten & rediscovered. More common then many realize or would even believe.

          • GreenWin

            Which begs the question – why not come forward with what they know to benefit all mankind? If it’s “military” it is owned by citizens who pay military salaries.

          • Billy Jackson

            unfortunately they are not going to give up a technology for free that gives them a major advantage. when it becomes known and public then we might start to see something. I daresay that we have more than just this tied up in black budget problems.. but good luck getting them out for the so called benefit of man, or even the US citizen.

        • bachcole

          I dislike your attitude. It was piffle that some Genoese dude thought that he could get to the East Indies by sailing West. It was piffle that some bicycle mechanics could fly; who ever heard of such rubbish.

          I would have thought that you would have learned something from the E-Cat phenomena, not intellectual learning but rather an open mindedness that allowed other people their opinions without you castigating them.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The biological transmutations that are seen in yeast and bacteria are fascinating. Could the NAE
    be microtubules? http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/16/iccf-19-conversations-and-impressions-mats-lewan/#comment-1971613503

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The biological transmutations that are seen in yeast and bacteria are fascinating. Could the NAE
    be microtubules? http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/16/iccf-19-conversations-and-impressions-mats-lewan/#comment-1971613503

  • Omega Z

    The U.S. Military was researching LENR in the 50’s & 60’s. They scoured the world for information on anomalous heat some of which originated to the 1700’s. I would note that all the materials involved with LENR today were thoroughly researched at extreme temps. That they may have such technology locked away would not surprise At All.

    That Tesla was interested does not surprise me.
    As to things discovered & apparently lost/forgotten & rediscovered. More common then many realize or would even believe.

    • GreenWin

      Which begs the question – why not come forward with what they know to benefit all mankind? If it’s “military” it is owned by citizens who pay military salaries.

      • Billy Jackson

        unfortunately they are not going to give up a technology for free that gives them a major advantage. when it becomes known and public then we might start to see something. I daresay that we have more than just this tied up in black budget problems.. but good luck getting them out for the so called benefit of man, or even the US citizen.

      • jo6pac

        What you say is true but would never happen the military is controlled by the 1%.

  • IgnoranceBeater

    Seldom read such a nonsensical article. What does it say, actually, besides the opinion of the author that Tesla stumbled upon LENR, and some vague insinuations we’re on the brink of a new discovery. Yes, yes…we’ve been there for the past 25 years, and no doubt we’ll be there for another 25 years. The author doesn’t seem to realise that another reason why cold fusion never materialised, even when dozens throughout history (dixit the author) have invented it, is simply *because it doesn’t exist*.

    The only LENR that exists, deals with muons. All the rest, all the hype about cold fusion where no muons are involved, but one gets excess heat and clear signs of cold fusion (neutrons, isotope-waste), is just no scientifically substantiated drivel and wishful thinking.

    It’s ironic the author doesn’t realise this is – yet again – one of those times people get all riled up about the EM-drive, rossi’s Ecat, and a lot of other similar perpetuum mobile and other nonsense. No doubt it ‘will eventually be forgotten’ too, as the author says. Which, in a way, IS a pity, because it means we’ll get the same nonsense of fanboys in another 100 years, since by that time, all will have forgotten about this sort of silly crap again.

    • builditnow

      Is that the Maryugo team sneaking in yet another non factual “silly crap” statement. Hi to the Maryugo team, we all know you know better, how could you not after studying all the excellent research on LENR. Are you now an investor with Rossi? Are you trying to boost your investment to get richer by holding back LENR until Rossi is ready to launch?
      Well, at least you are now a Rossi supporter ….. LOL

      • IgnoranceBeater

        Maryu who? What are you talking about? Since the whole argument seems to be based on you thinking I’m someone else, needless to say it falls short in substantiating anything at all.

        • georgehants

          Welcome IGNORANCE enjoy your stay, but please put up a comment that is at least worth having an argument or discussion about.

      • georgehants

        Fun to have a visit from an ECN quasi scientist, but so silly that no fun in answering, Ha.

    • bachcole

      To be a persistent (and annoying) disbeliever is as unscientific as to be a true believer. Until you have looked at the pro-LENR evidence, you are nothing more than an annoy skeptopath. We have already looked at tons of people saying tons of things that “prove” that LENR can’t exist. This is where we all came from. But the observation that it does exist trumps all arguments, all laws, all theories.

    • Billy Jackson

      Its called an opinion piece. Its nothing more than the conjecture and musing of the author based on a single premiss which the article is based on. Its not a documentary based on point by point fact. In fact is designed to do nothing more than require you to think of the possibilities from different perspectives. In that.. i think Axil did a fine job and your criticism is at best uncouth, while your condescension is just plain rude.

      I have had plenty of debates with axil, yet at least we both can maintain civility when we disagree on a point.. try it sometimes.. you would be amazed at how much easier it is to speak with someone when your not outright hostile.

      • IgnoranceBeater

        Your standards are for below mine, then. Even of an opinion piece, I expect rational reasonings substantiated by logical arguments. I see none of that. At least, of a *good* opinion piece.

        Being civil is fine, as long as people agree to certain standards when discussing, and also adher to the free speech doctrine. When it’s drivel, it’s drivel. You may find that ‘uncouth’ and ‘rude’, but I have no problem saying things like they are. Neither do you, since you plainly say I’m being uncouth and rude. So, what are you complain about, then? You say openly what you think of my comments, I do the same with the article. You seem to not appreciate it, but in essence, you’re doing the same. No doubt you feel vindicated to say that about my comments, because you regard them as obviously true. The same goes for me about the article.

        Note, btw, I never personally attacked the author, I just say the article is rubbish – which it is. Even as a ‘mere opinion piece’ it’s hardly worth its salt. I’ll leave you to your ‘easy’ and soft ways of dealing with esoteric nonsense like this, I simply have no patience for it. Sometimes, when you see nonsensical crap, you need to call out on it, not just mumble in the margin. Imho, we’re already far to lenient towards this sort of thing. I prefer the way of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. Maybe *you* should try it too, some day? But then again, to each his/her own., as *I* at least, realise.

        • Billy Jackson

          I am not contesting your stance on the article, i have my opinion as you have yours. Your opinion is as valid as the next persons thus you have the right to stand on your convictions. I simply think that from the way you write you seem fairly educated and intelligent, I think you are more than capable of expressing yourself without the condescending tone.

          Welcome to the board.. I hope you enjoy the discourse as much as the rest of us.. trust me.. it can get lively 🙂

          • IgnoranceBeater

            Then at least we agree on this stance.

            As for ‘opinions’: while I agree ‘mere’ opinions are all equal (and equally worthless, unless as a personal venting mechanism), I do not agree to the idea that all opinions are per definition worthless – or ‘equal’, if you prefer. I would argue, that any opinion which involves rational reasoning substantiated by logical arguments, trumps opinions which have neither.

            After all, if ALL opinions would be equally ‘true’, science wouldn’t even exist in the first place.

            Now, as for my opinion on the article, let me elaborate why I think it’s a mediocre and rather worthless article (‘Worth’ is, of course, in the eye of the beholder, but I’ll substantiate my opinion): I don’t see much worth in the article itself, for the reasons already mentioned:

            The author insinuates we’re on the brink of a new discovery..just like his examples did in his (already not too faithful depiction of) history.
            Just as was the case for all those ‘discoveries’ of cold fusion (or
            perpetuum mobile devices, etc.) there is not one ounce of actual proof being delivered. Hence the irony: he’s doing exactly what he says was done in the past. He’s creating yet another “tragic cycle of frustration and forgetfulness”.

            It seems strange that he (and many others on this forum) seem to miss the most logical and obvious explanation for this ‘tragic cycle’, namely simply the fact it doesn’t work, it never has, and it never will. Yet the delusion is strongly sought after, and wishful thinking has no bounds. Hence, it always pops up again, in the past, now, and in the future.

            In essence, this article is an letter of faith, not a thoughtful analysis
            or even rational contemplation of or about cold fusion. That already becomes apparent when it says: “These miracles are the production of energy without the associated generation of gamma radiation and radioactive isotopes.” Yes, miracles. Exactly. For miracles, you have to knock on the door of God. For reality-bound observations and tests to see if it actually works, you need falsifiable, peer-reviewed scientific tests which demonstrate without a doubt it’s cold fusion. And yes, that involves neutrons and gamma-rays. If none show up, then whatever you got, isn’t nuclear fusion. All the hand-waiving about miracles and “some unknown science far beyond the mind of man” can not change that, I’m afraid. Any article that purports to be about a scientific discovery – even as an opinion piece-, but needs miracles and esoteric mumblings about ‘some unknown science far beyond the mind of man’ to substantiate it, falls short, period.

            Granted, my criticism is not diplomatic – and that’s what you find disturbing – but really, does one have to be political correct and act as if it’s an article of wisdom, when, in fact, there is nothing substantial being said here?

          • Billy Jackson

            most of your reply i could heartily agree with in spirit if not quite all its point to point assumptions. Criticism is healthy if its constructive and itself on point and logical.

            Here is where you loose a bit of credibility

            “It seems strange that he (and many others on this forum) seem to miss
            the most logical and obvious explanation for this ‘tragic cycle’, namely
            simply the fact it doesn’t work, it never has, and it never will. Yet
            the delusion is strongly sought after, and wishful thinking has no
            bounds. Hence, it always pops up again, in the past, now, and in the
            future.”

            with one paragraph you dismiss the findings and progress of 25 years of research. including the 2 recent tests done by accredited scientist from multiple universities or respectable scientific backgrounds.. including NASA among many others.

            Earlier in this post i made a statement that i agreed with your point that source matters and it does.. and here we have multiple sources saying something is going on that are causing excess heat. between all these attestations and the two recent reports.. as an unknown yourself you don’t have a leg to stand on to make that kind of statement with anything approaching truth or accuracy you have nothing to back up what you are saying, no scientific data that you have used to point to and say SEE THIS ITS WRONG …which in the end makes it nothing more than an opinion by an unknown source… and much like my own.. worthless in the long run except as a voice to sustain the debate from differing perspectives.

            Now don’t get me wrong.i acknowledge your points from a literary sense in that the article loosely painted a picture from the authors perspective that might not be entirely accurate in all its findings or assumptions.

            Most of the submitted articles here are written by amateur writers like myself which frank loosely edits. I think from day one this site has done a great job of providing us with tid bits of information on the progress or findings of LENR while encouraging us to do our own research..

          • IgnoranceBeater

            Well, I’m afraid your welcome is not shared. As I suspected (I’m not overly surprised, thus) of a forum where one is expected to preach for the choir and is mostly a mental conflagration of believers, for believers, your welcome is not shared by everyone.

            If that opposition would amount to retort, I would have no problems with it. But I note that yesterday my links got marked as ‘spam’ (strangely enough, none of the pro-camp links seem to have had trouble remaining), half of my posts get constantly set on hold, after which a lot of them don’t get through, and now posts are even being deleted or removed.

            If it goes that way, I have nothing to say anymore. If I follow the free speech doctrine, I expect others to do the same. But censoring mine while allowing your own posts (and with you, I don’t mean you personally, just the people in charge here) is intellectually dishonest, and removes the opportunity of what I consider an adequate retort. It amounts to nothing more then biased censorship, and there is no reason why I should continue to debate or participate further on a forum like that.

            I do not wish to continue a debate under these conditions, which is heavily skewed in favour of the pro-camp. I’ll leave you guys to your own devices and self-referencing and navel-gazing. I find it ironic people here are chastising other people giving criticism as not being ‘open minded’ enough, but then use such tactics.

            But well, as said, I didn’t expect much else, to be frank. From now on, I’ll debate and retort in fora not managed and maintained by people who are not inclined to level the playing field.

          • Billy Jackson

            Unfortunately i dont see the admin side as i am a peon like everyone else. so if you are getting censored i am unaware of it. i can only respond to the the items i can see. If you are getting censored or your post are marked for approval then ask frank.. he’s pretty open and will let you know.

    • Axil Axil

      I have, myself, full confidence that if all here do their duty to protect this truth, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are surely being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend this precious principle and legacy of honesty; to ride out the storm of hypocrisy, and to outlast the menace of abasement, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. We here of common purpose being linked together in this noble cause and in the pressing need of all mankind, we will with vigor uphold this principle of unselfish honesty in the fullest purity of its noble form, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of our strength we shall go on to the end with success as the prize, we shall fight in the classroom, we shall contest in the blogs and in the office, we shall argue with growing confidence and growing strength on the laboratory floor, we shall defend our integrity, whatever the cost may be in enduring recrimination, we shall fight no matter the insults that we suffer; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this noble concept or a large part of it were subjugated and starved, then in God’s good time, the New World we want to inspire, will be born in all its power and might, stepping forth to the rescue in the full confidence and in good conscience to liberate a new and noble future.

      • IgnoranceBeater

        WTF? What are you going on about? While you do it eloquently, what you say is a lot of almost-religiously tainted semantics. Ride out the storm? Noble cause? New world order? Subjugated? Enduring recrimination?

        Dude, come of your high horse of indignation and self-victimisation. All that has nothing to do with anything. It’s a matter of whether it works or not, and if any actual proof has been delivered in that regard. It hasn’t. That’s all. Cold fusion won’t suddenly work because you think it’s you against the ‘powers of be’ or whatever you’re hanging up on here. I don’t care about your misgivings nor about your misanthropic worldview. The only ‘principle’ worth upholding in the case of cold fusion, is whether it has been scientifically proven. All what you said above is completely irrelevant to that.

        • Axil Axil

          So now you want to talk science rather than the propaganda of misdirection..

          In my opinion, like all manifestations of LENR, this reaction is based on nanoplasmonic energy amplification and concentration.

          I consider that Nanoplasmonics is the quintessential expression of the electrochemists art, a science conceived and brought into being by progenitor and paterfamilias of LENR, Martin Fleischmann himself back in 1974. This science is a branch of chemistry.

          I am sure that you together with all the other naysayers here have no idea what that branch of science is all about.

          A series of experiments that I am particularly fond of and not related to the E-Cat shows how light under the mediation of nanoparticles (provides topological order of the spin net liquid) can produce a nuclear reaction. Laser light alone does not produce the nuclear effect. I believe that LeClair is producing water based nanoparticles that catalyze the LENR reaction as I have explained here in past communications.

          http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf

          Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt.

          It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission and the transmutation that fission can produce.

          Abstract

          Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the wavelength of 1.06 – 0.355 mm were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 – 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are discussed.

          Here is another paper:

          I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission.

          See references:

          http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.6276.pdf

          There are more such examples. The ball is in your court.

          • bachcole

            Thank you, Axil^2.

          • Stephen

            Hi Axil, I found an interesting article in Space Daily web site:

            http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_quantum_spin_Hall_effect_is_a_fundamental_property_of_light_999.html

            It seems to talk about evanescent electromagnetic waves and SPP behaviour of photons on surfaces and in particular evidence that the quantum spin hall effect is a characteristic for photons as well as electrons. Is this in line with your thinking on SPP on surfaces of nano particles or is it maybe going in a different direction?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_Hall_effect
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave

          • Axil Axil

            In recent months, the RIKEN Center for Emergent Matter Science in Japan is producing a large number of EMF based quantum mechanical research findings directly related to LENR related to the true nature of photons and electrons. What is important is that heat(infrared light) has spin and can be converted to precisely directed magnetic beams in the same way that electrons can.

            There are theories of the universe where electrons and photons are basically different forms of the same thing and that these forms come from a more basic nature of the vacuum where spin is a fundamental property.

            http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/NSart-wen.html

            This finding shows that photons can eventually replace electrons in designs of new inventions. Directly related to LENR, mixtures of electron and photons (SPPs) can have useful properties.

            —————————————————–
            Some more stuff…

            The key component in the Ni/H reactor LENR reaction is the production of topological polaritons or as they have been newly named “Topolariton.”. Science has thus caught up with LENR in that these quasiparticles offically dubbed topological polaritons have made their debut in the theoretical world.

            The tools that Condensed-matter physicists often turn to particle-like wave form entities called quasiparticles—such as excitons, plasmons, magnons—to explain complex phenomena seen in the solid state. Now Gil Refael from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and colleagues report the theoretical concept of the topological polarition, or “topolariton”: a hybrid half-light, half-matter quasiparticle that has special topological properties and might be used in devices to transport light in one direction.

            This one way propagation down the length of the nanowire is a critical revelation that explains how topolaritons arise from the strong spin based coupling of a photon and an exciton, a bound state of an electron and a hole where when they reach the tip are traped to aggragate in great numbers. Their topology can be thought of as knots in their gapped energy-band structure. The nickel catalitic microparticles used in the Rossi reactor design provides topological one dimemsional nanowire structures from which topolaritons emerge, these knots unwind and allow the topolaritons to propagate in a single direction down the nanowire without back-reflection. In other words, the topolaritons cannot make U-turns. Back-reflection is a known source of detrimental feedback and loss in photonic devices. The LENR centric topolaritons’ immunity to back-reflection may thus be exploited to build long lived aggragates of topolaritons with increased performance.

            The paper by Gil Refael explains where the spin of these topolaritons come from and why they last for so long. In this newly released paper, these researchers are strugling to produce and use Topolaritons, but LENR inventors have been at this business for decades. It is promising that science is catching up with this everyday world of LENR.

            http://xxx.tau.ac.il/pdf/1406.4156.pdf

            Topological polaritons

            Torsten Karzig,1 Charles-Edouard Bardyn,1 Netanel H. Lindner,2, 1 and Gil Refael1

            1-Institute for Quantum Information and Matter, Caltech, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
            2-Physics Department, Technion, 320003 Haifa, Israel

            The interaction between light and matter can give rise to novel topological states. This principle was recently exemplified in Floquet topological insulators, where classical light was used to induce
            a topological electronic band structure. Here, in contrast, we show that mixing single photons with excitons can result in new topological polaritonic states — or “topolaritons”. Taken separately, the underlying photons and excitons are topologically trivial. Combined appropriately, however,they give rise to non-trivial polaritonic bands with chiral edge modes allowing for unidirectional polariton propagation. The main ingredient in our construction is an exciton-photon coupling with a phase that winds in momentum space. We demonstrate how this winding emerges from the finite momentum mixing between s-type and p-type bands in the electronic system and an applied Zeeman field. We discuss the requirements for obtaining a sizable topological gap in the polariton spectrum, and propose practical ways to realize topolaritons in semiconductor quantum wells and monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides.

          • Stephen

            Thanks again Axil for another great reply. you always manage to astonish me with something new and amaze me with what knowledge you have at your finger tips.

            It seems the article in space daily on this work done by the RIKEN Centre for Emergent Matter Science in Japan is supporting quite well the theory you mentioned by Xiao-Gang Wen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Michael Levin at Harvard University.

            I found the discussion on Herbertsmithite fascinating too.

            The Topolaritons are completely new to me too. I can’t help thinking these ideas and discoveries are where new engineering and discoveries will be made in the next generations its great that RIKEN are taking a lead in this.

            Regarding the evanescent EM waves and SPP, I wonder if these occur with the right frequency and magnetic field if they could cause near field resonance through NMR with the Lithium, and then if this could be important or not.

            I guess if Tesla was around today he would be fascinated by all this as well. I can only wonder at what you and he would come up with if he was. Maybe the next Tesla is out there somewhere getting inspired by the discoveries of today. I hope so.

          • mike

            I think you are brilliant axil. There are those the lead the way and those that follow. It’s been that way through our whole history. This guy has about as much a chance at discovering something as I do plucking a particular atom out of the universe. He needs a teacher attached to course credits before his mind turns on. Why he comes here baffles me. Even more baffling is Frank letting him troll on.

        • Axil Axil

          I had 50 posts on http://scienceblogs.com/starts.. .let’s talk about them or have we already done so on that blog.

    • mike

      Yea, fossil fuels and nuclear fusion is the be all end all. I know they aren’t, why do you? You are indoctrinated to the point of ignorance. Now stop telling us what can’t be done, and basically calling people frauds because they say they are doing it, and make your own mark on some new discovery. Or you want to tell the world here and now that there is nothing left to discover, like the patent office did many years ago before they were proven to be ignorant.
      There is all the energy in the universe in every square inch of space for us to use. Ignorance and arrogance is the only thing keeping us from tapping it. Or else go to one of those echo chambers and discuss how anything other than what you are taught is impossible. It is just not productive here. Here we look for the new fire not new funding angles for our religious dogma you call established science.

  • IgnoranceBeater
    • georgehants

      IGNORANCE you need to learn a little science, opinion is worthless, only Evidence is important and a very open-mind until that honest Evidence is shown to be positive or negative, only somebody very ignorant would try to dismiss any subject without temporary Proof.
      I suppose you deny with your baseless unscientific opinion that a God could exist?

      • IgnoranceBeater

        omg. I hope your doing this on purpose as showing some self-mockery, because if you’re not, I think you’ve established what I was saying about most posters/posts here.

        You can’t proof a negative, btw, nor something that is not possible to prove or disprove. But, and this is where the reciprocity of the argument breaks down by most that use this ‘argument’: that goes for everything. Alas, it’s not a question of ‘could’, it’s a question of likelihood. And this in turn means you discard conjectures and hypothesis which aren’t needed nor necessary, and have no discernible influence on reality. But maybe I’ve lost you, here.

        Let me reverse the question: can you prove that there is no incorporeal, invisible, magical dragon in my garage?

        The question is nonsensical to begin with, just like yours is.

        Indeed, opinions without substantiation are worthless. That’s why I said this article was worthless. It’s also why claims the Ecat of Rossi works are worthless. And why saying the EMdrive works is worthless, etc.

        • Obvious

          The fly is cast nearly perfectly. It lands on the water with barely a ripple. The slightest current or most trifling of a breeze tickles the impressionistic insect, the hairs denting the surface film just so, the wisps of feather glinting in the sun and moving ethereally. The trout sense the disturbance above. They see the potential morsel, and carefully gauge its position. They also note the positions of their fellows beneath the gentle waves. Who will make the first move? Who will give the extra swish of a tail to push past their competitors? The fly and its caster are oblivious to the actions and thoughts within the water. The fly caster believes in her creation, her course of action. She does not tug the line, the action of impetuous youth and inexperience. She lets nature do the work: the breeze, the current, and the trout will act according to their own ways. Once nature provides the correct cue, a series of actions will occur seemingly spontaneously. The line will tighten, and she will merely provide the tension at the correct moment, culminating in an explosion of muscular effort between human and fish. Whether one or the other wins the battle depends on so many things that they cannot be calculated. But she knows the trout will swim free at the end anyways. And perhaps each will become a little wiser.

          • bachcole

            Jesus that was beautiful in this context!!!!!

        • georgehants

          IGNORANCE, you have answered my point exactly, showing that any ignorant scientist who gives an opinion as a Fact, that there is no God etc. is an incompetent fool.
          Today’s science education has turned out a mass of unthinking halfwits totally unable to understand the most basic scientific principles or logic.
          Your religious rhetoric above is the perfect example of a closed-minded automaton simply following the preaching of ridiculous and unprofessional scientific Dogma.
          You nor any part of science “knows” and those egotistical wasters that go around like 95% of unworthy scientists debunking P&F, Cold Fusion, God or “dragons in your garage” (all you can say is that there are no visible dragons in your garage when you are there) without the slightest Evidence of them not being a possible reality have no place in science and most certainly not in any educational position.
          Only an open-mind is logical or scientific.

          • bachcole

            “Only an open-mind is logical or scientific.” Right on, or spot on as they say in more primitive areas of spoken English. (:->)

            An open-mind can be comfortable with uncertainty and can say “I don’t know”. All other mind types need not apply.

          • georgehants

            You have got it “spot on” Roger only the primitive fearful are afraid to look for and except reality and the Truth.
            As you say us poor old Brits just keep struggling along in our old ways.
            Ha.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          “Indeed, opinions without substantiation are worthless.”

          I think Einstein would have agreed with you.

          “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

        • GreenWin

          “… can you prove that there is no incorporeal, invisible, magical dragon in my garage?”

          This sounds remarkably like “invisible pink unicorns.” If invisible and incorporeal, why would it also be “magical?” Methinks Ignorance has beaten himself with his own stick. 🙂

      • Mats002

        This guy is devine or at least have some supreme knowlegde we have not. Or we here see an example of narcisism?

    • Mats002

      Thanks for the links IB, I read them (again) and have been familiar with what they say since back when they were published. I do not know why you believe you *know* more than others, most people here have followed LENR/Cold Fusion/Rossi for many years now. Axil Axils article might presuppose some basic knowledge about LENR, If you claim you have *evidence* for LENR is a non-existing phenomena I suggest you read here: http://kb.e-catworld.com/index.php?title=LENR_FAQ and here http://lenr-canr.org/
      If the igorance you want to beat is about Rossi, then I suppose what you *know* come from the linked articles. Then you should know that there are two piles of ‘soft evidence’ about Rossi, one negative (what you found) and one positive; learn about the positive pile here: http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/ Where are the ‘hard evidence’ about Rossi? My personal stand is that I wait for IH/Rossi to show the 1 MW plant to the world and what if that will not happen? In parallell to waiting the claimed LENR+ / Rossi Effect is explored by experimenters around the world. The answer to this puzzle will come one way or the other. But claiming you *know* the truth about this story is quite bold IB.

      • bachcole

        In some circles arrogance and castigation are credibility builders. Here at http://www.e-catworld.com, arrogance and castigation are credibility killers. When IgnoranceBeater stops being arrogant, stops putting people down, and starts looking at the positive evidence, then I will start listening to him.

        • Mats002

          Yep

    • Alan DeAngelis

      The claim is not “extraordinary”.
      The first completely artificial nuclear reaction, Li(7) + p > 2 He(4) 17.3MeV was accomplished using the primitive Cockcroft-Walton proton accelerator in 1931. The disappearance of Li(7) and the absence of gamma rays would be consistent with this reaction taking place.

      Then again, Cockcroft and Walton could also have been “frauds, hucksters, shysters
      and con artists”.

      • IgnoranceBeater

        It wouldn’t be extra-ordinary if it was a pure Proton–lithium-7 fusion, but since none of the cold fusion links deal with this specific fusion, it IS extra-ordinary. You have a limited number of pathways to fusion without having gamma-rays nor neutrons, but since those aren’t the reactions that are possible in the cold-fusion examples, the claim that, yet, it isn’t following these pathways, is, indeed, very extra-ordinary.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Maybe it’s something like the following:

          Pd + 2d > Cd*

          Cd* > Pd + He

          Over all:
          2d > He 24 MeV (with no gamma ray)
          http://coldfusionnow.org/dr-melvin-miles-on-helium-4-excess-heat-new-interview/

        • Alan DeAngelis

          This is how Richard K. Lyon explained it in his May 15, 1989 letter
          to C&E News (a few weeks after F&P’s March 23, 1989 press
          conference):

          “….From the media accounts, the Pons and Fleischmann experiment
          appeared to have been motivated by the speculation that since electrons in a conduction band move collectively, it is possible for a
          conduction-band electron to act as if it were much more massive than a
          free electron. Thus, if there is a dislocation in the matrix of palladium ions, a site at which occupancy by two deuterium ions is marginally possible, an electron between these two deuterium ions might,
          by virtue of is effectively greater mass, bring them close enough for
          fusion to occur.
          The contradiction between the observed large heat release and the
          very small neutron yield may be explained by making the further
          assumption that catalyzed cold fusion is a different process from
          thermal fusion. In thermal deuterium-deuterium fusion the 4He nuclei is
          an extremely short-lived intermediate; the two deuterons come together
          with both the energy needed to overcome the coulombic barrier. This
          thermal energy brings with it considerable angular momentum. Since the
          4He nuclei is isolated, the only ways in which it can dispose of the
          excess energy and angular momentum are by decomposition to 3He + n and to T + H. In catalyzed cold fusion, however, the situation is quite
          different. The 4He nucleus is formed without significant angular
          momentum or thermal energy and is not isolated in that the electron
          which catalyzed the fusion event is available to remove excess energy.

          Thus one possible explanation for the production of heat without
          corresponding neutron production is that when fusion is catalyzed by
          conduction-band electrons in palladium the dominant reaction is to 4He,
          with 3He + n and T + H only minor side reactions….”

          Richard K. Lyon May 15, 1989 letter to C&E News

    • Alan DeAngelis

      This guy may no be as well educated as the people you linked to but I thought I’d add him to the list.
      “Nuclear and high energy physicists seem to be unaware of the fact that phenomena in materials are not always as reproducible as are phenomena in their field. Transistors are
      a good example of variability in solid state devices.”
      -Brian Josephson
      http://coldfusionnow.org/michio-kaku-informed-on-new-developments-in-cold-fusion/
      (see his comment)

  • builditnow

    Is that the Maryugo team sneaking in yet another non factual “silly crap” statement. Hi to the Maryugo team, we all know you know better, how could you not after studying all the excellent research on LENR. Are you now an investor with Rossi? Are you trying to boost your investment to get richer by holding back LENR until Rossi is ready to launch?
    Well, at least you are now a Rossi supporter ….. LOL

    • georgehants

      Fun to have a visit from a ECN quasi scientist, but so silly that no fun in answering, Ha.

  • georgehants

    Welcome IGNORANCE enjoy your stay, but please put up a comment that is at least worth having an argument about.

    • Mats002

      Thanks for the links IB, I read them (again) and have been familiar with what they say since back when they were published. I do not know why you believe you *know* more than others, most people here have followed LENR/Cold Fusion/Rossi for many years now. Axil Axils article might presuppose some basic knowledge about LENR, If you claim you have *evidence* for LENR is a non-existing phenomena I suggest you read here: http://kb.e-catworld.com/index.php?title=LENR_FAQ and here http://lenr-canr.org/
      If the igorance you want to beat is about Rossi, then I suppose what you *know* come from the linked articles. Then you should know that there are two piles of ‘soft evidence’ about Rossi, one negative (what you found) and one positive; learn about the positive pile here: http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/ Where are the ‘hard evidence’ about Rossi? My personal stand is that I wait for IH/Rossi to show the 1 MW plant to the world and what if that will not happen? In parallell to waiting the claimed LENR+ / Rossi Effect is explored by experimenters around the world. The answer to this puzzle will come one way or the other. But claiming you *know* the truth about this story is quite bold IB.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      The claim is not “extraordinary”.
      The first completely artificial nuclear reaction, Li(7) + p > 2 He(4) 17.3MeV was accomplished using the primitive Cockcroft-Walton proton accelerator in 1931. The disappearance of Li(7) and the absence of gamma rays would be consistent with this reaction taking place.

      Then again, Cockcroft and Walton could also have been “frauds, hucksters, shysters
      and con artists”.

  • georgehants

    IGNORANCE you need to learn a little science, opinion is worthless, only Evidence is important and a very open-mind until that Evidence is shown to be positive or negative, only somebody very ignorant would try to dismiss any subject without temporary Proof.
    I suppose you deny with your baseless unscientific opinion that a God could exist?

    • Mats002

      This guy is devine or at least have some supreme knowlegde we have not. Or we here see an example of narcisism?

  • Billy Jackson

    Its called an opinion piece. Its nothing more than the conjecture and musing of the author based on a single premiss which the article is based on. Its not a documentary based on point by point fact. In fact is designed to do nothing more than require you to think of the possibilities from different perspectives. In that.. i think Axil did a fine job and your criticism is at best uncouth, while your condescension is just plain rude.

    I have had plenty of debates with axil, yet at least we both can maintain civility when we disagree on a point.. try it sometimes.. you would be amazed at how much easier it is to speak with someone when your not outright hostile.

  • Nelson Vogel

    This time the industrial-military complex may allow the introduction of LENR, because the planet will not survive without replacing of fossil fuel by a cleaner source, simple like that. Have no doubts that they knew about it from long time, and they will keep secret as much as possible the discoveries on their hands. They probably keep 50 years advantage over civil enginneers knowledge, with almost unlimited resources to R&D.

  • Axil Axil

    So now you want to talk science rather than the propiganda of misdirection..

    In my opinion, like all manifestations of LENR, this reaction is based on nanoplasmonic energy amplification and concentration.

    I consider that Nanoplasmonics is the quintessential expression of the electrochemists art, a science conceived and brought into being by progenitor and paterfamilias of LENR, Martin Fleischmann himself back in 1974. This science is a branch of chemistry.

    I am sure that you together with all the other naysayers here have no idea what that branch of science is all about.

    A series of experiments that I am particularly fond of and not related to the E-Cat shows how light under the mediation of nanoparticles (provides topological order of the spin net liquid) can produce a nuclear reaction. Laser light alone does not produce the nuclear effect. I believe that LeClair is producing water based nanoparticles that catalyze the LENR reaction as I have explained here in past communications.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0911/0911.5495.pdf

    Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the aqueous solution of Uranium salt.

    It is clearly shown that Neutrons are not required to initiate fission and the transmutation that fission can produce.

    Abstract

    Laser exposure of suspension of either gold or palladium nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of UO2Cl2 of natural isotope abundance was experimentally studied. Picosecond Nd:YAG lasers at peak power of 1011 -1013 W/cm2 at the wavelength of 1.06 – 0.355 mm were used as well as a visible-range Cu vapor laser at peak power of 1010 W/cm2. The composition of colloidal solutions before and after laser exposure was analyzed using atomic absorption and gamma spectroscopy in 0.06 – 1 MeV range of photon energy. A real-time gamma-spectroscopy was used to characterize the kinetics of nuclear reactions during laser exposure. It was found that laser exposure initiated nuclear reactions involving both 238U and 235U nuclei via different channels in H2O and D2O. The influence of saturation of both the liquid and nanoparticles by gaseous H2 and D2 on the kinetics of nuclear transformations was found. Possible mechanisms of observed processes are discussed.

    Here is another paper:

    I have referenced papers here to show how the nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission.

    See references:

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq

    There are more such examples. The ball is in your court.

    • Stephen

      Hi Axil, I found an interesting article in Space Daily web site:

      http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_quantum_spin_Hall_effect_is_a_fundamental_property_of_light_999.html

      It seems to talk about evanescent electromagnetic waves and SPP behaviour of photons on surfaces and in particular evidence that the quantum spin hall effect is present for photons as well as electrons. Is this in line with your thinking on SPP on surfaces of nano particles or is it maybe going in a different direction?

      • Axil Axil

        In recent months, the RIKEN Center for Emergent Matter Science in Japan is producing a large number of EMF based quantum mechanical research findings directly related to LENR related to the true nature of photons and electrons. What is important is that heat(infrared light) has spin and can be converted to precisely directed magnetic beams in the same way that electrons can.

        There are theories of the universe where electrons and photons are basically different forms of the same thing and that these forms come from a more basic nature of the vacuum where spin is a fundamental property.

        http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/NSart-wen.html

        This finding shows that photons can eventually replace electrons in designs of new inventions. Directly related to LENR, mixtures of electron and photons (SPPs) can have useful properties.

        • Stephen

          Thanks again Axil for another great reply. you always manage to astonish me with something new and amaze me with what knowledge you have at your finger tips.

          It seems the article in space daily on this work done by the RIKEN Centre for Emergent Matter Science in Japan is supporting quite well the theory you mentioned by Xiao-Gang Wen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Michael Levin at Harvard University.

          I found the discussion on Herbertsmithite fascinating too.

          The Topolaritons are completely new to me too. I can’t help thinking these ideas and discoveries are where new engineering and discoveries will be made in the next generations its great that RIKEN are taking a lead in this.

          Regarding the evanescent EM waves and SPP, I can’t help wondering if these occur with the right frequency and magnetic field if they could cause near field resonance through NMR with the Lithium.

  • Billy Jackson

    I am not contesting your stance on the article, i have my opinion as you have yours. Your opinion is as valid as the next persons thus you have the right to stand on your convictions. I simply think that from the way you write you seem fairly educated and intelligent, I think you are more than capable of expressing yourself without the condescending tone.

    Welcome to the board.. I hope you enjoy the discourse as much as the rest of us.. trust me.. it can get lively 🙂

    • IgnoranceBeater

      Well, I’m afraid your welcome is not shared. As I suspected (I’m not overly surprised, thus) of a forum where one is expected to preach for the choir and is mostly a mental conflagration of believers, for believers, your welcome is not shared by everyone.

      If that opposition would amount to retort, I would have no problems with it. But I note that yesterday my links got marked as ‘spam’ (strangely enough, none of the pro-camp links seem to have had trouble remaining), half of my posts get constantly set on hold, after which a lot of them don’t get through, and now posts are even being deleted or removed.

      If it goes that way, I have nothing to say anymore. If I follow the free speech doctrine, I expect others to do the same. But censoring mine while allowing your own posts (and with you, I don’t mean you personally, just the people in charge here) is intellectually dishonest, and removes the opportunity of what I consider an adequate retort. It amounts to nothing more then biased censorship, and there is no reason why I should continue to debate or participate further on a forum like that.

      I do not wish to continue a debate under these conditions, which is heavily skewed in favour of the pro-camp. I’ll leave you guys to your own devices and self-referencing and navel-gazing. I find it ironic people here are chastising other people giving criticism as not being ‘open minded’ enough, but then use such tactics.

      But well, as said, I didn’t expect much else, to be frank. From now on, I’ll debate and retort in fora not managed and maintained by people who are not inclined to level the playing field.

      • Billy Jackson

        Unfortunately i dont see the admin side as i am a peon like everyone else. so if you are getting censored i am unaware of it. i can only respond to the the items i can see. If you are getting censored or your post are marked for approval then ask frank.. he’s pretty open and will let you know.

  • Billy Jackson

    I Agree with ignorancebeater on a minor but important point. Source links are only as good as the source themselves. This is why Rossi struggles with acceptance, his past has been slandered or misrepresented to the point of frustration. this is why reputation in the field of science is important and probably why you find reputable scientist staying far away from anything that can stain that reputation.

    If Cal tech. MIT, Duke, Yale…any of the IVY league schools or high end tech schools pretty much come out with a public announcement on a new discovery. people dont question it to much beyond hmm interesting and keep an eye on it while further studies are being done…

    When joe public who’s never been heard of has no doctorates and is nothing more than a chemist / basement engineer/ garage inventor comes out with the next big thing… well it takes time for him to prove it as the public looks at it with a skewed perspective waiting for the curtain to drop and see the man behind the mirror..

    In the end.. source matters as trust, verification, and then replication has to take place in order for us to proceed in a logical manner.. dont get me wrong.. rossi’s way works too.. but it takes longer.. and the occasional scientific enema from an unknown is a great way of keeping the reputable ones honest 🙂

  • Billy Jackson

    I Agree with ignorancebeater on a minor but important point. Source links are only as good as the source themselves. This is why Rossi struggles with acceptance, his past has been slandered or misrepresented to the point of frustration. this is why reputation in the field of science is important and probably why you find reputable scientist staying far away from anything that can stain that reputation.

    If Cal tech. MIT, Duke, Yale…any of the IVY league schools or high end tech schools pretty much come out with a public announcement on a new discovery. people dont question it to much beyond hmm interesting and keep an eye on it while further studies are being done…

    When joe public who’s never been heard of has no doctorates and is nothing more than a chemist / basement engineer/ garage inventor comes out with the next big thing… well it takes time for him to prove it as the public looks at it with a skewed perspective waiting for the curtain to drop and see the man behind the mirror..

    In the end.. source matters as trust, verification, and then replication has to take place in order for us to proceed in a logical manner.. dont get me wrong.. rossi’s way works too.. but it takes longer.. and the occasional scientific enema from an unknown is a great way of keeping the reputable ones honest 🙂

  • Obvious

    The fly is cast nearly perfectly. It lands on the water with barely a ripple. The slightest current or most trifling of a breeze tickles the impressionistic insect, the hairs denting the surface film just so, the wisps of feather glinting in the sun and moving ethereally. The trout sense the disturbance above. They see the potential morsel, and carefully gauge its position. They also note the positions of their fellows beneath the gentle waves. Who will make the first move? Who will give the extra swish of a tail to push past their competitors? The fly and its caster are oblivious to the actions and thoughts within the water. The fisherman believes in her creation, her course of action. She does not tug the line, the action of impetuous youth and inexperience. She lets nature do the work: the breeze, the current, and the trout will act according to their own ways. Once nature provides the correct cue, a series of actions will occur seemingly spontaneously. The line will tighten, and she will merely provide the tension at the correct moment, culminating in an explosion of muscular effort between human and fish. Whether one or the other wins the battle depends on so many things that they cannot be calculated. But she knows the trout will swim free at the end anyways. And perhaps each will become a little wiser.

  • toussaint françois
  • georgehants

    IGNORANCE, you have answered my point exactly, showing that any ignorent scientist who gives an opinion as a Fact, that there is no God etc. is an incompetent fool.
    Today’s science education has turned out a mass of unthinking halfwits totally unable to understand the most basic scientific principles or logic.
    Your religious rhetoric above is the perfect example of a closed-minded automaton simply following the preaching of ridiculous and unprofessional scientific Dogma.
    You nor any part of science “knows” and those egotistical wasters that go around like 95% of unworthy scientists debunking P&F, Cold Fusion, God or “dragons in your garage” without the slightest Evidence of there not being a possible reality have no place in science and most certainly not in any educational position.
    Only an open-mind is logical or scientific.

    • bachcole

      “Only an open-mind is logical or scientific.” Right on, or spot on as they say in more primitive areas of spoken English. (:->)

      An open-mind can be comfortable with uncertainty and can say “I don’t know”. All other mind types need not apply.

      • georgehants

        You have got it “spot on” Roger only the primitive fearful are afraid to look for and except reality and the Truth.
        As you say us poor old Brits just keep struggling along in our old ways.
        Ha.

  • Mats002

    Yep

  • Billy Jackson

    most of your reply i could heartily agree with in spirit if not quite all its point to point assumptions. Criticism is healthy if its constructive and itself on point and logical.

    Here is where you loose a bit of credibility

    “It seems strange that he (and many others on this forum) seem to miss
    the most logical and obvious explanation for this ‘tragic cycle’, namely
    simply the fact it doesn’t work, it never has, and it never will. Yet
    the delusion is strongly sought after, and wishful thinking has no
    bounds. Hence, it always pops up again, in the past, now, and in the
    future.”

    with one paragraph you dismiss the findings and progress of 25 years of research. including the 2 recent tests done by accredited scientist from multiple universities or respectable scientific backgrounds.. including NASA among many others.

    Earlier in this post i made a statement that i agreed with your point that source matters and it does.. and here we have multiple sources saying something is going on that are causing excess heat. between all these attestations and the two recent reports.. as an unknown yourself you don’t have a leg to stand on to make that kind of statement with anything approaching truth or accuracy you have nothing to back up what you are saying, no scientific data that you have used to point to and say SEE THIS ITS WRONG …which in the end makes it nothing more than an opinion by an unknown source… and much like my own.. worthless in the long run except as a voice to sustain the debate from differing perspectives.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “Indeed, opinions without substantiation are worthless.”

    I think Einstein would have agreed with you.

    “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

  • GreenWin

    “… can you prove that there is no incorporeal, invisible, magical dragon in my garage?”

    This sounds remarkably like “invisible pink unicorns.” If invisible and incorporeal, why would it also be “magical?” Methinks Ignorance has beaten himself with his own stick. 🙂

  • GreenWin

    This discussion is of value in reading the comments of the deeply frustrated Ignorance Beater. Who, as concluded below, seems to have beaten himself with the Ignorance stick once too often.

  • ecatworld

    Just a reminder of the commenting guidelines here:

    “E-Cat World is a site that takes LENR seriously, and accepts it as a valid field of research, and a potentially useful energy source. ECW is not a venue where LENR/cold fusion skeptics are given free rein, or a place to debate whether LENR/cold fusion is real. Here we assume here that LENR/cold fusion is a valid scientific phenomenon, an important topic, and one worthy of mature discussion.”

    Posts arguing that cold fusion is not real are subject to moderation.

  • Frank Acland

    Just a reminder of the commenting guidelines here:

    “E-Cat World is a site that takes LENR seriously, and accepts it as a valid field of research, and a potentially useful energy source. ECW is not a venue where LENR/cold fusion skeptics are given free rein, or a place to debate whether LENR/cold fusion is real. Here we assume here that LENR/cold fusion is a valid scientific phenomenon, an important topic, and one worthy of mature discussion.”

    Posts arguing that cold fusion is not real are subject to moderation.

    • bachcole

      Frank is my hero. Seriously and sincerely.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe it’s something like the following:

    Pd + 2d > Cd*

    Cd* > Pd + He

    Over all:
    2d > He 24 MeV (with no gamma ray)
    http://coldfusionnow.org/dr-melvin-miles-on-helium-4-excess-heat-new-interview/

  • Alan DeAngelis

    This is how Richard K. Lyon explained it in his May 15, 1989 letter
    to C&E News (a few weeks after F&P’s March 23, 1989 press
    conference):

    “….From the media accounts, the Pons and Fleischmann experiment
    appeared to have been motivated by the speculation that since electrons in a conduction band move collectively, it is possible for a
    conduction-band electron to act as if it were much more massive than a
    free electron. Thus, if there is a dislocation in the matrix of palladium ions, a site at which occupancy by two deuterium ions is marginally possible, an electron between these two deuterium ions might,
    by virtue of is effectively greater mass, bring them close enough for
    fusion to occur.
    The contradiction between the observed large heat release and the
    very small neutron yield may be explained by making the further
    assumption that catalyzed cold fusion is a different process from
    thermal fusion. In thermal deuterium-deuterium fusion the 4He nuclei is
    an extremely short-lived intermediate; the two deuterons come together
    with both the energy needed to overcome the coulombic barrier. This
    thermal energy brings with it considerable angular momentum. Since the
    4He nuclei is isolated, the only ways in which it can dispose of the
    excess energy and angular momentum are by decomposition to 3He + n and to T + H. In catalyzed cold fusion, however, the situation is quite
    different. The 4He nucleus is formed without significant angular
    momentum or thermal energy and is not isolated in that the electron
    which catalyzed the fusion event is available to remove excess energy.

    Thus one possible explanation for the production of heat without
    corresponding neutron production is that when fusion is catalyzed by
    conduction-band electrons in palladium the dominant reaction is to 4He,
    with 3He + n and T + H only minor side reactions….”

    Richard K. Lyon May 15, 1989 letter to C&E News

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Here is a forgotten presentation. The first person to propose a Bose-Einstein Condensate mechanism for cold fusion was
    Professor of Chemistry K. Birgitta Whaley. http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/kbwgrp/index.php/People/BirgittaWhaley
    Her presentation at the 197th Annual Meeting of the ACS in Dallas (April 12, 1989):
    PS.
    This is just weeks after F&P’s March 23, 1989 announcement!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3QlOg2pUrU

    • GreenWin

      Another real scientist looking for ways hydrogen in metals can form a condensate at room temps. Her screening calc for Coulomb tunneling in Bose condensates is impressive. Perhaps Dr. K. Birgitta Whaley will be vindicated as LENR becomes mainstream.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        She’s had a quarter of a century to think about LENR since she made that talk. Maybe she would submit a post to ECW if asked.

        • georgehants

          If she is retired or has won the Nobel Prize she may say something, if not she will still be shaking in her shoes, afraid to upset her priests or their congregation, meaning almost all her colleagues, employers etc.
          Wonderful honest profession, science, everybody should be proud of themselves.
          Perhaps somebody may invite her to give her story, now at least 1% of the profession may listen.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah, 1% is enough.

            “When it comes time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.” – Chief Aupumut in 1725, Mohican.

          • georgehants

            Alan, agreed, for me the Evidence for reincarnation is strong, so for them it means returning again to try and live a more worthwhile life and Learn.
            Best

          • Alan DeAngelis

            I just noticed this comment you made last month. Actually, I thought he meant that when you’re dead you’re dead and don’t worry about it.
            That’s the frame of mind I’d like to be in when I’m about to croak.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Here is a forgotten presentation. The first person to propose a Bose-Einstein Condensate mechanism for cold fusion was
    Professor of Chemistry K. Birgitta Whaley. http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/kbwgrp/index.php/People/BirgittaWhaley
    Her presentation at the 197th Annual Meeting of the ACS in Dallas (April 12, 1989):
    PS.
    This is just weeks after F&P’s March 23, 1989 announcement!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3QlOg2pUrU

    • GreenWin

      Another real scientist looking for ways hydrogen in metals can form a condensate at room temps. Her screening calc for Coulomb tunneling in Bose condensates is impressive. Perhaps Dr. K. Birgitta Whaley will be vindicated as LENR becomes mainstream.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        She’s had a quarter of a century to think about LENR since she made that talk. Maybe she would submit a post to ECW if asked.

        • georgehants

          If she is retired or has won the Nobel Prize she may say something, if not she will still be shaking in her shoes, afraid to upset her priests or their congregation, meaning almost all her colleagues, employers etc.
          Wonderful honest profession, science, everybody should be proud of themselves.
          Perhaps somebody may invite her to give her story, now at least 1% of the profession may listen without abuse.

          • bachcole

            Seems like having a Nobel Prize is not enough: Josephson.

            Only retirement and a pension seems to be able to make people brave.

          • georgehants

            Roger, agreed, they are all “brave” honesty has cost Brian a knighthood in the UK, most people would have kept silent and wallowed in their success, I think.
            Being honest and brave in this World does not mean those of a lesser nature will listen.
            In this Country nurses for example who tell of terrible crimes in the NHS are quickly removed and got rid of, sad life.
            Best

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah, 1% is enough.

            “When it comes time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.” – Chief Aupumut in 1725, Mohican.

          • georgehants

            Alan, agreed, for me the scientific Evidence for reincarnation is strong, so for them it means returning again to try and live a more worthwhile life and Learn.
            Best

          • Alan DeAngelis

            I just noticed this comment you made last month. Actually, I thought he meant that when you’re dead you’re dead and don’t worry about it.
            That’s the frame of mind I’d like to be in when I’m about to croak.

  • georgehants

    Roger, they are all “brave” It has cost Brian a knighthood in the UK, most people would have kept silent and wallowed in their success, I think.
    Being honest and brave in this World does not mean those of a lesser nature will listen.
    In this Country nurses for example who tell of terrible crimes in the NHS are quickly removed and got rid of, sad life.
    Best