The Invisible LENR Revolution

There was a little flash of hope recently that maybe those watching over the Cold Fusion page on Wikipedia were becoming a little more lenient in their treatment of references to Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat. For almost the whole day the following information could be read:

Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat LENR system has recently gained some notice as possibly the first working, replicable LENR system. In 2014 the American private equity firm Cherokee Partners bought the rights to his system for $11 million after a team of European scientists studied the system in operation and confirmed its validity. They set up the company Industrial Heat LLC to explore its market potential. Rossi also provided them with a 1 MW plant which they will operate and test for a year. He also received a US Patent for one of the components of the system (see Patents, below).

There was also a reference to the experiments of Alexander Parkhomov. However, an editor put an end to this visibility by deleting the comment along with the note: “Remove Rossi ballyhooing.” (See the Wikipedia history page for the full tracking of the revisions)

One of the governing tenets of Wikipedia is that information presented there should be covered from a ‘neutral point of view’, which Wikipedia defines thus: “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”

For many people, trusting the neutrality of Wikipedia, it is the place to go to check out if something is legitimate or not. If you do any Google search on a topic, you are very likely to find a reference to a Wikipedia article on the first page (most people look no further), so for many people Google + Wikipedia = Truth. What is not so commonly realized is that what shows up on Wikipedia pages is carefully filtered by the attitudes of the Wikipedia moderators, who make the determination about what count as reliable sources on any topic. Normally, citations from mainstream publications are the only sources of information that are allowed to be cited, which leads to a cloak of invisibility being thrown over much information that is not covered by ‘acceptable’ sources.

The same approach holds fast for other publications. Most professional journalists, editors and writers will avoid mentioning topics that are not approved by established authorities. I read today an article on the Italian edition of the International Business Times which had reported on Rossi’s achievement of obtaining a US Patent. They added this update to their article:

In the comments section of our Facebook page there was noted that this article concerning E-Cat could have the effect of “incense” the work of Andrea Rossi. While thanking the reader for attention that he wanted to dedicate ourselves, we do not think that really what is written above may be some sort of praise the work of Rossi, and even speaking specifically of concern that, despite the grant of the patent, still remain .

The rest of the piece is nothing more than the “cold record” of the events: the grant of the patent, its timing, the description comes from the abstract.

However, to avoid any misunderstanding, we would like to clarify that the granting of the patent USPTO is in no way a guarantee of the validity of the scientific principle (which is still shrouded in mystery) on which the E-Cat should be based .

So any discussion of the E-Cat in polite company has to be done with the utmost caution, lest people might think it is presented in any kind of favorable light. And it’s not just Rossi and the E-Cat — anything connected with cold fusion/LENR gets similar treatment, or is completely ignored. The legacy of the Pons and Fleischmann affair still looms large over the whole field.

So the LENR revolution continues largely invisible. Those who work in the field, and those who follow the topic are very much outsiders — some consider us gullible, foolish, crazy or worse. However, mostly the field is totally unknown; it has been successfully whitewashed out of public awareness by those who hold the keys of knowledge.

However, I don’t think this is going to be a permanent situation. Important work continues, and replication efforts are increasing, as new information is gleaned from patents and other experimenters. I think the signs are very good that the field will break out sooner or later, and finally the cloak will be lifted and many more will be able to recognize that the LENR could be one of the most important discoveries of our age.

  • Tannenbaum

    An awful lot of people cling to the misconception that Wikipedia is some sort of reliable and authoritative source of unbiased information. Nothing could be further from the truth.

  • oceans

    Peter Gluck also had a interesting description about – witnessing the birth of the LENR island .. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/09/sep-07-2015-convert-raw-lenr-diversity.html

  • EmTee

    Good post! Nearly the same situation in the German Wikipedia. 🙁

  • Fyodor

    “However, to avoid any misunderstanding, we would like to clarify that the granting of the patent USPTO is in no way a guarantee of the validity of the scientific principle (which is still shrouded in mystery) on which the E-Cat should be based .”

    This is completely correct. The patent doesn’t mention cold fusion or LENR and the claims cover the recipe and results (Excess heat), but not the nature of the reaction. The patent mentions the chemical reactions but no nuclear processes. As far as I can tell the patent grant process didn’t involve evaluating test data or anything like that. They just looked to see if anyone had previously come up with the process Rossi was claiming.

    I’m glad Rossi has his patent and I think that the information will be useful to replicators, but I think that the newspapers are correct to note that the patent grant shouldn’t be considered a validation by the patent office of LENR or Rossi’s work.

    • Fyodor

      As I’ve said before, LENR lacks all three of the following, at least one or two of which is necessary for any sort of public legitimacy.

      1. A known, repeatable experiment that provides clear excess power.

      2. A generally accepted theory of how it produces excess energy (right not there are a bunch of contradictory theories). This probably will follow from #1.

      3. A working publicly available product.

      I’m hoping that Rossi’s patent might help us get 1 and 3 sooner rather than later, but until we get them it’s going to be a fringe phenomenon.

      • Mats002

        Strike out #3 – most pages on Wiki describes phenomena without a product. Where is the hot fusion product? Is ‘sonoluminance’ a product – no it is a phenomenon. LENR is a phenomenon.

        • Fyodor

          Mats

          I didn’t say ALL three were necessary, just one of the three.

          There was atmospheric testing of hot fusion products for several decades before it was banned by treaty.

          All joking aside, there are known processes for causing hot fusion in a predictable way. Whether we will ever get sustainable hot fusion or hot fusion that generates more energy than the amount necessary for the reaction is highly dubious. I don’t think hot fusion is a good investment, even compared to things like newer clean fission technologies. But we know what the hot fusions reaction is, we know how to create it in a reliable way.

          Similarly there are existing, predictable experiments that can produce sonoluminance effects in a reliable way.

          No such replicable experiments for LENR. I remain hopeful that the new disclosures in Rossi’s patents will allow replicators to come up with a replicable experiment but we’re not there yet.

          • US_Citizen71

            I think the MFMP might be close to giving us #1 we will have to wait and see if the rest of the isotope testing data comes back with the same results as what has been reported already. If it does, I believe the only thing they need to do is separate the active and control parts of their ‘Glow Stick’ into two physically different reactors so they stop getting conducted heat from the active side polluting the readings of the inactive side and reducing the readings of the active side.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            I would encourage Wikipedia to continue “being responsible”.
            http://activerain.com/image_store/uploads/6/4/8/5/2/ar131070344825846.jpg

          • bachcole

            Absolutely!!!!!!!!!

          • Frechette

            Yes indeed. The book with the title “Other Losses” by Canadian author James Bacque describing the treatment of German POWs in Eisenhower’s camps on the Rhein in April 1945. This was censored repeatedly by Wikipedia when someone attempted to refer to this hushed up Allied war crime. In this case it was crass censorship.

          • ecatworld

            I have to say that I find Wikipedia to be a useful reference tool, for certain kinds of factual information. You just have to know when to use it, and when to discount it

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yes, and I think that most of us here would agree with you. That’s the strange thing about that Cold Fusion entry. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            PS
            Here is an example of useful Wikipedia reference.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks

          • builditnow

            Where is the white-wash paint ……. please

      • Homeopathy is extreme bullshit so he did a good thing. By mentioning homeopathy here you do misservice to LENR. http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com

        • psi2u2

          Wikipedia, as I think I’ve remarked here before, is completely incompetent at dealing with any topic where vested intellectual (and or material) interests are wrong but don’t know it. I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that there’s shortly going to be a major shift in the entire wikipedia organization over the disgraceful patterns of harassment and bullying that have gone on their on various topics which are policed by the organized but often woefully ignorant “skeptics” who hold forth there. Now if only Tom Reedy will follow me here to prove the point I will be gratified.

          Cheers. Frank, keep up the great work. Will send some more pennies shortly. Psi.

          • I mostly agree, but with a slight change.
            Wikipedia behave like many media, at least those I see in france, in that it follows not the consensus of science, but the consensus of a mediaspere, where some activists, some intellectual lobbies, are much more powerful, in fact more funded, than even the most dishonest gang of corps blackops.

            Today on TV, on the most business friendly TV in France, i have seen them relay the anti-science claims of a condemned author, putting many patient at risk of avoiding some useful (maybe not always, and not totally) medicines.
            I have seen the same for the pseudo science claims of some against Wifi, chemistry, nuke…

            the worst crimes are done, not for vested interest, but by sincere beliefs, of people who think they can save the world, despite the will of lower people.

          • psi2u2

            Interesting point, Alainco. Thanks.

      • HS61AF91

        Public legitimacy is when you can by working e-Cats cheap at Walmart. Experimental verification, theoretical acceptance, are nice ideas, and taking an e-Cat home validates them.

  • mcloki

    The problem for these people is that the internet never forgets and book careers have been made out of uncovering and publicizing past injustices. Can you not already see the NOVA special about the “discovery” of LENR. Coming down on the wrong side of history is the ultimate revenge.

  • LilyLover

    Wikipedia, like mass-media,
    Good idea, if you’ve no idea.
    Knowledge that empowers,
    There nay hovers.
    Not to upset the Powers,
    To whom the crowd cowers.
    The length of third feather of second cousin of green duck,
    Sure, you’ll find it, since Ivory Towers, doesn’t it muck.
    Meaningless tingles,
    Anything that jingles,
    Like the color of shingles,
    Or the shape of pringles,
    Likes the Wikipedia,
    To mix and mingle.
    Information vacuum paradox,
    I call thee,
    Since Science journals “Orthodox”,
    Charge you fee.
    Is it fun?
    Wiki that, son.
    Keeps you enslaved?
    That knowledge is lewd.
    Does it liberate?
    No, deliberate.
    Wiki n Tiki – what’s common you say?
    One makes you sloppy, chirpy makes you happy –
    They make you sing the tunes – you’d otherwise never say.
    `LilyLover

  • LilyLover

    Wikipedia – True Colors
    **********

    Wikipedia, like mass-media,
    Good idea, if you’ve no idea.
    Knowledge that empowers,
    There nay hovers.
    Why upset the Powers?
    To whom the crowd cowers.

    The length of third feather of second cousin of green duck,
    Sure, you’ll find it, since Ivory Towers, doesn’t it muck.

    Meaningless tingles,
    Anything that jingles,
    Like the color of shingles,
    Or the shape of pringles,
    Likes the Wikipedia,
    As it mixes and mingles.

    Information vacuum paradox,
    I call thee,
    Since Science-journals “Orthodox”,
    Charge you fee.

    Is it fun?
    Wiki that, son.
    Keeps you enslaved?
    That knowledge is lewd.
    Does it liberate?
    No. Deliberate.

    Wiki n Tiki – what’s common you say?
    One makes you sloppy, chirpy makes you happy –
    They make you sing the tunes – you’d otherwise never say.

    `LilyLover

    • Jarea

      hahaha XD. Maybe, you can upload your new single in youtube and post it here XD.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    I still think these postive LENR changes NOW being allowed to stay may be a direct result of the recent clearing out of some of the black hats/sock puppets/paid “volunteers” tasked to spread FUD about LENR and Rossi:

    “Wikipedia once again began cracking down on both editors and contributors who are violating its guidelines.

    The editors of the site banned 381 accounts for charging or accepting money for their contributions, without the disclosure of information, which Wikipedia calls “undisclosed paid advocacy.”

    The administrators have announced that the accounts have been blocked since Monday following a seven-day investigation which was nicknamed “Orangemoody.”

    All the accounts that had been banned were identified as “sock” accounts, according to the site’s editors. The sock is short for sockpuppets which refer to people maintaining accounts that are “misleading or deceptive.”

    Wikipedia bans writers from writing or editing articles about people or companies whom they are affiliated with so a “sock” account might be the one that camouflages the author’s affiliations.

    Aside from blocking the users, Wikipedia editors also deleted 210 articles created by users of the now deleted accounts.

    Most of these deleted articles were usually promotional in nature and related to businesses, artists or people in the business. Articles were written had a biased information, unattributed material, and potential copyright violations, as mentioned by the Wikimedia Foundation that runs Wikipedia in a Monday blog post.

    Some of these banned accounts likewise belonged to editors who were being paid for their work but didn’t disclose it to Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not ban paid editors, all they ask is to disclose with them if they (editors) are being paid specifically to write an article.

    more here: http://www.vcpost.com/articles/88911/20150903/undisclosed-paid-advocacy-made-wikipedia-ban-black-hat-accounts.htm

  • radvar

    1984

  • Tim

    If Wikipedia just allowed any new idea, or fringe theory to be posted without references then for every idea that turns out to be true you would have a thousand articles on complete gibberish.

    They have to use some standard, some rules, or it would just be a collection of random blogs rather than an encyclopaedia.

    LENR will earn its place, unlike the majority of fringe ideas

  • Obvious

    Nature is just as bad as the rest. Nature and reviewers allowed a report “demonstrating” that wearing red shorts improved the odds of winning an event in the 2004 Olympics….

  • mcloki

    Wikipedia just needs constant vigilance. The price of freedom.

  • GreenWin

    Jimmy Wales admittedly sold adult material (aka porn) prior to founding Wikidpedia. It is a wonder that people rely on Wiki-entries as anything but continued fantasy.

    • Frechette

      Thanks for the info. That puts things into perspective.

    • Agaricus

      Mike Adams of naturalnews seems to share the lack of enthusiasm for Wikipedia expressed here, and for Jimmy Wales in particular.

      “10 shocking facts you never knew about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales”:
      http://www.naturalnews.com/051060_wikipedia_Jimmy_Wales_extortion_racket.html

    • Omega Z

      For what it’s worth,
      Wiki is having problems with some of their Editors.
      It seems some Editors want to document facts, but are overruled by the political correctness guru’s.

      Want to know whats really frightening. There are people making decisions that effect our lives everyday who get their information from Wikipedia. Consider, There is so much medical research going on that Doctors do not have time to keep up. A large percent use Wikipedia as a quick reference.

  • Frechette

    I avoid Wikipedia like the devil holy water. I have found that certain topics about recent European history are totally biased and down right misleading to put it mildly.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Déjà vu. Ah yes.

      “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself
      becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of
      this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to
      confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look
      with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading
      newspapers live & die in the belief that they have known something of what
      has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have
      read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world
      as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their
      fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is
      now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected
      a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be
      relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better
      informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to
      truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads
      nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.”

      Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, Washington,
      June 11, 1807

    • Omega Z

      They go so far as to rewrite history.

  • builditnow

    Consider Wikipedia as a big mirror … WikiMirror or … WikiControlled. You hold it up to see a reflection of the “officially sanctioned view of the world”.

    How to tell if WikiMirror is having WikiSuppression is going on:
    The way to tell is to first read the “talk” section, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion (click on the archive section and see how much is there). There is a big tip off at the beginning of that page, see if you can find it 🙂 Compare to this non contentious page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nail

    You can also view the historical edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&type=revision&diff=679920489&oldid=679768870 Compare to this non contentious page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nail&action=history

    • having wikipedia as simply the academic consensus would be nice, but it is in fact more and more controlled by non scientific , non corporate, lobbies…mostly NGO activist, like our mindguard on cold fusion.

      the recent rejection of sock puppet account from corporate paid actors, is in fact a great crime. mostly those socks puppets were fighting against the activists, restoring some fairness…

      wikipedia is falling day after days into intolerance to multiple views, and also away from scientific consensus, even when it is wrong.

      what is happening with cold fusion is not so common, but there is more and more additional data to push some malthusian anti-tech view of the world, the current activist consensus.

      I am really opposed to most declared pseudo-science, but wikipedia should go back to the initial spirit to allow every position to be presented, even if it is to be declared as biased, or challenged.

      when there is only one official truth, there is a chance it is not the good one.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe we are crazy. I can live with that.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3fbk9XBbBw

  • Jarea

    It is incredible with anonymous people try to discuss and rebate, as they know the ultimate true about cold fusion.

    They just repeat what they read in some mainstream science blog, many just repeat and repeat what his mainstream guru says as parrot without thinking that this blog maybe is driven by a hot fusion scientist with conflict of interest that are hard biased and that they hide key points of the true. Besides, these mainstream physicist is so hard coded with theory that he doesn’t want to see more about the facts and evidence that have been found. They think science has his rules and procedures strict (academic) but they don’t know really much about invention and discoveries.

    After having set his mind in the first place with this minimal research, then it is too late and difficult to change it because that would mean that they are wrong and have been tricked with misinformation. It is also incredible to see how anonymous people try to discuss with a Nobel prize winner regarding what is science. I don’t want to commit the authority fallacy but sometimes i cannot understand why the people don’t inform themselves before discussing a topic.

    As i said in a previous comment, we need first, LENR to be replicated and then a big lesson learnt as feedback to the science procedures. It seems the same happened to many scientist before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
    ) and it is happening today. We have to protect the experiments and evidence!

    • EmTee

      “Thirty years later, most of these have been accepted and implemented in the United States and many other parts of the world.”

      “… observations conflicted with the established scientific
      and … opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the
      … community.”

      Sounds all familiar?

    • psi2u2

      Yep. That’s petty much the score on a number of topics at wiki.

  • Timar

    Let’s turn the invisible revolution into an invincible revolution…

  • A. Ruggeri

    I managed to prove the existence of the Ether/ESF in the Universal reality and to
    do so I had to prove without possible doubt that the gravitational phenomenon
    is a LENR one based on (consisting of) transformation/degradation within a mass
    M of units of mass in [Ton] into equivalent units of mass as substance in
    expansion in [kJ] which under simultaneous absorption by the Ether/ESF (Scalar
    absorption or Vector absorption, according to the case) are causing movement of
    the mass to which they belong etc…
    I don’t even dream
    that this discovery of mine will be accepted in the next 300 years….

    • Nigel Appleton

      Yep, I think you’re right there

    • Axil Axil

      It may be a good think that LENR is flying under the radar. As long as there is progress being made in LENR companies and open source venues LENR can tolerate being invisible. If LENR was perceived by the vested interests as the deadly danger that it is to their hegemony, LENR would be attacked with great vigor and with unlimited resources. Such is the way of political action.

      LENR must be able to break out of anonymity pressing ahead worldwide on many fronts to reveal themselves when the time is right. Rossi and IH is an exception considering their high profile. I suspect that there are many anonymous companies around the world engaged in the great LENR game all enjoying the cloak of invisibility that is fortunately in place at this critical stage.

      • bachcole

        For there to be a hegemony, there must be a conscious unity among those trying to promote the hegemony. I see only millions of individuals and thousands of companies having unity, and I see only greed as their motivation.

        Be that as it may, I could not agree more. The more that the E-Cat is invisible, the better.

        And the cloak of invisibility is in the minds of those who are blind to what is happening in plain sight. Even better.

      • I don’t believe in the naive “vested interest” opposing LENR.
        the only interest I see opposing LENR are dogmatic. it is Academic societies, journalists who committed too much in the myth, and mindguard who hope to be thanked by the powerful for their dirty job, as in any war .

        the “vested interest” like oil, nuke, industrialists, they individually tested and reproduced LENR, and some even fund research today.

        BARC was nuke centered, but they did a great job with LENR.

        the core of the opposition is US ivy leagues, and ex-manhattan project deified nuclear physicist, who simply ridiculed themselves by their clear incompetence in logic, material science, chemistry and calorimetry… they cannot admit reality because their misconduct and incompetence is too clear.
        all the rest are parrots, mindguards, journalists, editors and similar hounds. they cannot stop , as their incompetence, cowardliness, misconducts, are too clear.

        the vested interest today, they research LENR, they fund LENR (look at LENRG “blackswan insurance” model), they patent LENR, they survey LENR, or they ignore LENR. not anyone is opposing LENR

      • Surveilz

        Worst of which are governments riding the gravy train to the tune of 1 TRILLION USD –> annually <– on fossil fuel levies.

      • BillH

        Has anyone considered that the lack of interest by mainstream press and science might actually be a good thing? At least four years have passed now since AR’s first demonstrations of working reactors to the public. There is currently no working system on the market that can be purchased or observed. Even AR would have to agree that progress has been slower than initially predicted.
        Had the press grabbed this story sooner they may we be baying for blood and products by now.

        I’m sure that there are many scientist studying all the information currently available and racking their brains to see a way that LENR can possibly work, since no testable theory has yet come forward we can assume that this is not a trivial matter, and many will prefer to lurk in the shadows.

        The good news is that the commercial aspect of E Cat appears to be gathering pace, or so it seems to me. A patent has been granted and the testing on the 1MW is nearer it’s end than it’s beginning. The absolute best result would be to see at the end of testing that the mysterious customer comes out and says “The new plant worked better than we expected and saved us heaps of money, so we are going to order another four” We can but hope.

  • psi2u2

    Wikipedia, as I think I’ve remarked here before, is completely incompetent at dealing with any topic where vested intellectual (and or material) interests are wrong but don’t know it. I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that there’s shortly going to be a major shift in the entire wikipedia organization over the disgraceful patterns of harassment and bullying that have gone on there on various topics which are policed by the organized but often woefully ignorant “skeptics” who hold forth there. The LENR saga will be part of that revolution, but so will “Shakespeare” and other topics. Now if only Tom Reedy will follow me here to prove the point I will be gratified.

    Cheers. Frank, keep up the great work. Will send some more pennies shortly. Psi.

  • Omega Z

    he he he
    I knew when I posted this you would respond if you saw it.
    In many ways I agree with you on the topic.
    However, I did think it was a good point.
    And it happens to be factual as well.
    This came from a survey of doctors & the percentages of doctors who do so gave me shivers.