Cambridge University Professor Huw Price on the ‘Reputation Trap’ of Cold Fusion (Update: Response in Popular Mechanics)

Thanks to a number of readers for sharing this interesting article that they found as a top story on the Digg website. It’s written by Huw Price, Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy and a fellow of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge, and Academic Director of the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk.

The article is titled “The cold fusion horizon: Is cold fusion truly impossible, or is it just that no respectable scientist can risk their reputation working on it?” and is published today on the website here:

It’s an interesting article which comes from the perspective of a philosopher of science who is looking at the subject not from a technical, but more from a psychological and sociological perspective. Looking at the evidence, Price sees plenty of reasons to take the subject of cold fusion seriously, even if he does not yet see proof. He mentions that Andrea Rossi is going from “strength to strength”, and now his claims are being made more credible with Brillouin energy emerging on the scene.

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“Imagine that someone had a working hot-fusion reactor in Florida – assembled, as Rossi’s 1MW device is reported to be, in a couple of shipping containers, and producing several hundred kilowatts of excess power, month after month, in apparent safety. That would be huge news. As several people have noticed, a new clean source of energy would be really, really useful right about now.

But if the potential news is this big, why haven’t most of you heard about Rossi, or Godes, or any of the other people who have been working in the area (for many years, in some cases)? This is where, from a philosopher of science’s point of view, things get interesting.

As a question about sociology, the answer is obvious. Cold fusion is dismissed as pseudoscience, the kind of thing that respectable scientists and science journalists simply don’t talk about (unless to remind us of its disgrace)”

Price concludes that the whole field of cold fusion is stuck in a “reptutation trap”, that is very difficult to get out of since anyone touching it can quickly be tainted if they treat the field seriously. He says he has heard from acadamics in the sciences who are frustrated because academic departments are not treating LENR as an acceptable science field. Some more from Price:

If Rossi, Godes, Lundin, Lidgren and others do turn out to have something useful – something that can make some useful contribution to meeting our desperate need for clean, cheap energy – we will have wasted a generation of progress. What we should have done instead is to have engineered the exact opposite of a reputation trap – perhaps an X Prize-like reward for the first reliable replication of the Fleischmann and Pons results, above some commercial bar.

I commend Dr. Price for being willing to take the risk of being tainted himself by publishing this essay. It may be that steps like this from respected academics might have the effect of continuing the rehabilitation reputations of Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, and the whole field of cold fusion in the process.

A resume for Huw Price can be found here:

UPDATE: Thanks to Gerrit for posting this link to an article that has just been posted on the Popular Mechanics website in response to this article by Huw Price titled “Can Cold Fusion Come Back From the Dead?”:

  • georgehants

    Respect to Mr. Price.
    As Admin states, one of the few brave Rebels of science willing to speak the Truth.
    When this disgraced profession gives prizes to those doing so then things may begin to change for the better.

  • Hun de Bär

    We’ll just have to wait until all the nay-sayer top notch scientists have died 😉

    • Zephir

      IMO The dismissal of cold fusion is primarily of socioeconomical origin – until these reasons will not vanish, then the nay-sayers can not and will not die out. Don’t forget, the cold fusion is ignored for four scientific generations already (Paneth and Peters 1926).

  • Bob Greenyer

    This is important.

  • Zephir

    Regarding the reputation trap, Huw Price is not first, who realized it:

    “In a huge, grandiose convention center I found about 200 extremely conventional-looking scientists, almost all of them male and over 50. In fact some seemed over 70, and I realized why: The younger ones had bailed years ago, fearing career damage from the cold fusion stigma”.

    “I have tenure, so I don’t have to worry about my reputation,”

    commented physicist George Miley, 65.

    “But if I were an assistant professor, I would think twice about getting involved.”

  • Gerrit
  • Axil Axil

    Giving the world unlimited and pure energy is just the tip of the cold fusion iceberg. I am not alone in this feeling; many longtime and prominent LENR experts agree. From what he has seen in Rossi’s experiments, even Rossi’s top assistant sees the Starship Enterprise built before his days are finally counted.

    Cold fusion is the Pandora’s box for our current understanding of science. Just the smallest opening of that box will spell the end of today’s science, and the leaders of today’s science instinctively know that all the miracles that are implied by cold fusion are too extreme for their minds constrained and stunted by their primitive training to comprehend.

    The future that cold fusion implies in the fullness of its comprehension and consequences include the revelation of new types of quantum mechanics, the transmutation of garbage to gold, warp drive, EMF shields so strong that a nuclear bomb has no effect on it, anti gravity, magnetic propulsion, understanding dark matter and dark energy, and control of the expanding universe through inflation, faster than light travel, and the control of time itself.

    Such changes to the minds and prerogatives of humankind and the scope of our knowledge must be made gradually because the ascent to godhood requires the most sensitive and gradual of approaches.

    It might be best for the time being to seek the comfort and solace of our current ignorance and clime the steps in the accent of man to it next level of fullness in a slow and shadowed process as we aspire to the knowledge of the gods.

    • Brokeeper

      Well said.
      Too many scientists have locked themselves into a finite explanation of the universe. Until they can explain the infinitesimal
      they won’t be able to understand fully the infinite and everything in between. A changing of the old guard is coming.

    • tlp

      Very similar situation as with Mills GUTCP and hydrinos. Currently dismissed but soon finally accepted. Dark matter and accelerating expansion of universe finally clearly explained to all.

    • TomR

      Thanks Axil Axil, we need you to stay around here and help guide us through these times. I for one don’t care if some of your ideas are off a little, keep them coming and let them stand or fall, they are all good.

      • Bruce Williams

        I agree with you Tom, I have long thought that Axil is one of the Star contributers to this forum……….thanks a lot Axil for your numerous and very interesting contributions.

    • Axil Axil

      Dear friends I am not exaggerating.

      Some experimental techniques are so precise that their results are beyond question. The only way for these results to be discredited is claiming fraud in the production of the associated experimental results. Such results come from the transmutation assay of the Lugano ash nickel isotopic distribution. The pure NI62 nickel particle covered in Li6 isotope has only one possible explanation.

      That particle is like the bleeding hand that Tomas needed to confirm his faith.

      The quantum mechanics that underpins the production of that particle is different from the QM that we all understand. Not only energy is teleported from inside of that particle but neutrons are teleported from the Lithium cover to the Ni atoms throughout the volume of that particle. The existence of such a new QM(non-associative QM) is a introductory preview of the kinds of wonders ahead of us in the very near future once cold fusion becomes commonly accepted.

      The special kind of magnetic field that generates this type of monopole reaction has long been sought after by science.

      [quote]Pinfold says the discovery of electronic monopoles will open up a whole new future for materials and technology if scientists can produce large numbers of them. “Monopoles could make materials strong enough to withstand a nuclear explosion and could also enable magnetic levitation.”Read more at:

    • Billy Jackson

      One of the things that i have seen repeated was that the expectations for change in the next 20 years due to exponential growth in our technology and simply the level of science we are now committed to across various industries from energy, medical, manufacturing, travel, production. and so on. will be greater than the past of all human history combined.

      as with any futuristic predictions accuracy is always a bit skewed when it comes to landing on target. yet the evidence is right before our eyes that the potential for growth as a species is coming whether we want it or not.

      It will not come without pain, loss, and disruption of what we consider the standards of today’s life.. but it will come and LENR is but one of those technologies.

  • Gerrit
    • Mats002

      He he he – a heavy hit in the dam.

      • Brokeeper

        Run deniers from below!

    • TomR

      Thanks Gerrit, I left a comment at the end of the article.

      • TomR

        I went back to see if there were anymore comments and it says there is one comment but it does not seem to be visible.

  • Gerrit

    “I am grateful for comments from Martin Rees, Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh, Adrian Kent, Tim Lewens, Shahar Avin, Ken Wharton and Andrew Briggs.”

    Martin Rees is the former president (2005-2010) of the Royal Society

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is certainly a well peer reviewed and finely crafted piece of writing.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Good for Cambridge. Huw Price isn’t the first person from Cambridge
    to speak up about cold fusion.

    “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 (See comments)

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “..attempts failed 25 years ago..” Really?

    • Bob Greenyer

      No – not really and not all of them. Mostly they tried to “improve” the experiment by making/getting ultra pure palladium – and this caused the failures of what were essentially NOT replications.

      • Owen Geiger

        That fact that articles keep repeating this falsehood (attempts failed 25 years ago) supports Huw Price’s point. It’s craziness or laziness when a journalist can’t bother to do a bit of fact checking instead of repeating the same misinformation.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          I think it’s the face-saving spin that marbled institutions are trying to put on this.

  • Alan DeAngelis
    • Obvious

      [It is not] “utterly chimerical to think of wind superseding coal in
      some places for a very important part of its present duty—that of giving

      ~ Lord Kelvin

  • Bob Matulis

    Imagine if Bill Gate created a $5,000,000 X-prize for LENR.

    • f sedei

      Probably a lot of action with little or no concrete results.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    There is a simple way to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. Just have a reranking of the world’s institutions using the “Regionalisation of Results” observations that Douglas R.O. Morrison provided us with in 1990
    (but not in the way he intended that it be used).

    “…in preparing a review of Cold Fusion for the May 1989 APS
    meeting, I was surprised to find that in Northern Europe and the USA area 1 (the major labs and the North-West) the results were almost all negative whereas in Eastern and Southern Europe, Asia, Latin America and USA area 2 (the rest of the USA) the results were almost entirely positive..”

  • Axil Axil

    The item that gives LENR its magic is the monopole magnetic field that certain nano and micro particles produce. The key to producing this special type of magnetic field is the ordering of the spins of the electrons/photons hybrid quasiparticle: the polariton that redirect the spin of this EMF wave packet in a unified and focused direction.

    In illustration of this principle as follows:

    “Researchers have demonstrated that coating a cobalt film in graphene doubles the film’s perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (PMA), so that it reaches a value 20 times higher than that of traditional metallic cobalt/platinum multilayers that are being researched for this property. In a material with a high PMA, the magnetization is oriented perpendicular to the interface of the material’s layers.”

    Read more at:

    This research as shown that the layering of graphite crystals forms a magnetic lens that insures that the spins of electrons all point perpendicular to the crystal plane.

    Certain crystals of hydrogen, lithium and other alkali metals together with water have the same repetitive layered structure that graphite has. These nanoparticles and microparticles are rydberg matter and the water crystal. These special particles amplify and redirect the spin of polaritons that accumulate along there lengths so that the spins of the polaritons all point forward and perpendicular to the plane of the crystal. This spin focusing mechanism may also help the formation of a bose concentrate of polaritons throughout the entire length of the crystal.

    These special crystals act as powerful monopole magnets that tightly focus the spins of the polariton solitons in the direction that the head of the long and multilayered crystal is pointing.

    • Zephir

      This is nice – but what does it imply? And why we are forced to read about it in this thread?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        That indeed summarises string theory, kind of.

        The main reason people take string theory seriously is that it includes gravity, that is, it could potentially develop into a theory of “everything” (a quantum theory of gravity, electroweak and strong interactions), while traditional point-particle quantum field theories have failed to do so. That said, string theories have other drawbacks like not being unique and being mathematically complicated.

        Not so many people actively study string theory these days, because there is some feeling of stagnancy. Many “string theorists” have become more like mathematicians or moved to other fields of physics.

      • Curbina

        There’s a French book that is called something alike “De Grand imposture des super cordes”, along the lines that what can’t be tested experimentally “is not even wrong”.

  • georgehants

    I am certainly surprised (not really) at the very few people on page that have commented in support of this Wonderful man willing to stand up publicly and speak the Truth regarding Cold Fusion and the failures of science.
    Perhaps there is a psychiatrist or psychologist on page that would like to give a view of why this is, bearing in mind that both those professions are just as closed-minded and Dogma huggers as most physical scientists.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I think that existing rules of science are fine, the problem was that in case of cold fusion, the rules were violated. Falsifying data and summarily rejecting papers without peer review broke the rules.

    Normally, when some radical idea is proposed, the peer reviewers are initially sceptical, and first the paper may get rejected. However, the authors then go back into lab, rewriting the paper, improving the analysis. Sooner or later at least one paper on the topic gets accepted, be it experimental or theoretical, and after that happens, the next papers are often sent for peer review to the author of the first paper. Then it expands from there. This is the normal way how new areas of science are born. The fact that peer reviewers are conservative (because they are asked to be critical) causes some delay, but the delay is not longer than a few years.

    This process did not happen with cold fusion, which was at least partly because some editors (I do not know how many) apparently summarily rejected all cold fusion papers without sending them to peer review. To what extent cold fusion researchers themselves can be blamed for incapability to strengthen their case is an issue that can be discussed; I do not have a strong opinion on that. However, the one who broke the rules is guilty, and a group of editors who summarily rejects papers on certain topic without normal peer review is in my opinion clearly guilty of breaking the rules.

    Editors of course do have to reject some papers without peer review, or else the system would be overloaded. But normally the limit goes quite far. I have a few times received papers for reviewing which are so evidently garbage that any editor could have seen it without bothering a peer reviewer to check. Yet those papers were duly sent to peer review, while at the same time cold fusion papers were apparently rejected automatically. I say “apparently” because I do not know the data. No one knows the full picture, because communication between editors and authors and editors and referees is not public. The editors are trusted persons in the system, so violation of the rules by them is particularly severe.

    • georgehants

      Could you comment on the scientific meeting where Cold Fusion was corruptly debunked as a fraud etc. by a high ranking scientist speaker and then, there was a moments silence and the whole audience stood up applauding.
      It is this scientific press conference that destroyed Cold Fusion.
      Not the media, not politicians, but scientists, so incompetent that when told what to think they reacted like a flock of sheep, I think it unfair to criticise sheep as they are acting instinctively.
      I am sure you know what I am talking about, GreenWin can give you links if you need them as he has a photographic memory.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Applauding or being wrong are not against any rules.

        • georgehants

          Wow, I am impressed with your reply, thank you.

        • Oystein Lande

          A litle reminder of early CF history and the status since:

          Scientists are like the rest of humanity – prefers to follow the pack, don’t like changes etc. Etc.

          .If you want to publicise a new discovery, it has to be Peer reviewed and accepted by “real journals”. Since cold fusion one Month after the press conference in 1989 was concluded pure “pathological science”, there was no Journals that would publicise and no peers to review papers. And That’s been the story ever since.

          Or to repeat what the Nobel Price winner (in physics) Julian Seymour Schwinger said of his attempt to publish papers on Cold fusion :
          “What I had not expected was the venomous criticism, the contempt, the enormous pressure to conform. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?

          Thomas Clarke claimed on LENR forum: “It is not credible that science that is openly described could be suppressed for so long, if it worked.”

          Yes it is credible. Yes, LENR is openly described, but not in what is considered “real journals”. So physcists lacks the interest and willingness and funding to investigate, since consensus is “nothing there”.

          The swedish physcist Stephan Pomp said it something like this : I see no Cold Fusion papers being publicised in credible real Journals, therefore I will not investigate the phenomenon.

          So there we have Catch 22: the physics community will not investigate since papers are not published in ” real journals”, and CF researchers can not get their papers published, since all know it is pathological science and there are no one to peer review.

          • Stephen

            “Scientists are like the rest of humanity – prefers to follow the pack, don’t like changes Etc”

            Unfortunately I have to agree… But I would say their job is not to follow the pack Good Scientists should be seeking out studying and trying explain new phenomena.

            There are many good scientists working in other “safe” and related fields of study which already do this. I hope some of these will look further and deeper into LENR, maybe there is irrational fear and unrealised preconceptions (the bane of good science) blocking proper understanding. Whatever one believes one knows about LENR evidence it deserves this deeper consideration.

            I hope the slow revelation of LENR and other technologies will change the norm too. I think it already is to be honest and rumbles are already likely being heard in those Ivory towers of wisdom. Some I suspect are starting to listen.

    • Zephir

      For example the journal deletes all comments containing the “LENR” or “cold fusion” phrases. Many online discussions (StackExchange, PhysicsForums) act in the same way.

    • Curbina

      My not so vast but meaningful experience as peer reviewer and peer reviewed tells me that the lack of interdisciplinary point of views is really hurting. In my first paper ever, I struggled a lot to get one of the reviewers to understand how a toxic molecule can make a living organism to spend more energy to survive.

      • Omega Z

        The lack of interdisciplinary is a problem.
        If we’re to continue advancing, we need more interdisciplinary science.
        We don’t need to look far to find people lacking the answers themselves to a problem outside their discipline & are unaware of those who do.

        Sadly, The advent of the Internet hasn’t been of the benefit I once hoped for.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yes, thank you.
          The magazine not the mother.

    • Ted-X

      Editors are not independent. Do not blame them. There are higher forces that control them and the higher forces that control funding of research. The word “FUNDING” is the key. The whole publication industry and mass media are very integrated and tightly controlled. As predicted by Mr. Orwell and a few others.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Well, I blame those who break the rules.

      • GreenWin

        No. Editors will have to accept blame. Independence is implied in the Editor job description. That is in a non-simulated world.

  • Rock is solid ,Continents do not move.
    There is no thing as continental drift.
    Nothing can travel faster than light.
    New particles prove there is whole new physics to be explored/discovered.

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe this comments is probably a summary of what most of us have been saying all the time. The importance of this is that a main stream scientist philosopher of Cambridge has written this. Excellent in his wordings and in its totality. This may enforce scientists to hammer this into their brains, change their gray matter and to start thinking for themselves finally.
    Interesting also is that scientific philosophers seem to be able to not groupthink. Maybe that is the reason why Rossi (also a degree in philosophy) is able to accomplish this?

    • Axil Axil

      If you get science by the pockets, their heart and minds will follow.

      • malkom700

        It’s just a good joke, of course, scientists are anyway all deserve respect.

        • Zephir

          It’s perfectly true: the scientists who were able to develop the nuclear weapon in just six years from finding of nuclear fission in conditions of full classification (just because the governement has payed them well) struggle by now to replicate trivial cold fusion experiments for decades – just because they’re not motivated well into it. We are waiting twenty years for replication of Piantelli’s experiments, for replication of Panneth-Petter’s experiments nine decades already. Respected or not, the scientists really have no better motivation than the money – just face it.

          • Zephir

            In Czechia we are saying: “The carps will never empty their own pond”…

    • malkom700

      It is very likely that AR will not fully disclose the invention, even if the E-Cat will be used on an industrial scale. Somewhere therein lies the explanation. Besides, NASA is also developing a technology that is unnoticed in the media.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Thank goodness the Wright brothers didn’t go to a university.

    • Agaricus

      Not to mention Leonardo da Vinci, William Herschel, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, James Watt, John Trevithick, George Stevenson, Benjamin Franklin, Michael Faraday, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Buckminster Fuller,….

      • GreenWin

        Plus 5

  • Rossi was never convicted for fraud.

    • Omega Z

      But, But,
      Mary says and then, Krivit points out he was charged but neglects to point out he was not convicted. Krivit is also good at name dropping(Usually someone with credibility) in the middle of a paragraph allowing the unaware to assume the name he dropped agrees with what he’s saying when in fact it is nothing of the sort…

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    In every group there are leaders. The scientific community is no different, I blame these leaders for having ulterior motives for not being truthful about LENR.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The system that science uses is anarchy, with no leaders.

      • Mats002

        Some positions in this anarchy oriented organization are obviously more powerful than others, as you said below: “the group of editors who summarily rejects papers on certain topic without normal peer review is in my opinion clearly guilty of breaking the rules.”

        The rule ‘editor’ in this system might need some oversight.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Yes. I mean, if an editor bypasses the peer review system or applies it in a dishonest way, one can and should blame him (but see below). But one cannot blame a prominent scientist just because someone else has decided to follow his opinion. Being an informal opinion leader is not a crime regardless if the opinion is right or wrong.

          The current ethical rules of science are long and detailed ( ). There is a lot of text about the role of editors in catching papers containing falsified data, for example… But the rules actually say nothing about possible misconduct that editors might commit. It seems to me that it never occurred to those who wrote the ethical rules that high-level editorial misconduct could happen. This seems to be a clear shortcoming of the current ethical rules. I didn’t notice it before, so thanks, Mats, for raising the issue. I checked also the Finnish rules and they also don’t say anything about editorial practices.

          • Mats002

            COPE seams to be an authority for editors, and I would like to see their investigation about the LENR-gate, or are there other, better forums for editors?

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I don’t know, this is new to me. Their guide seems to be a list of best practices for editors.

          • Mats002

            Yes they have a lot of documents for how to behave, see and even a guide for wissel blowers, which I think is the correct way for LENR misconduct of editors.

            COPE was founded 1996 and started off in biology, not physics, but have since then spread to cover all science disciplines including physics.

            The editors of Nature and the like journals should be warned that their process is faulty because they refuse to look at the evidence at SRI (McKubre/Godes), MIT (Hagelstein/Swartz) and Vigolante in Italy.

            Rossi/IH might be in the list if they agree for more open audits.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Nature and Science are a special case, because they tell openly that they hand-pick papers and take only those to peer review. Complaining to them is therefore futile. The problem lies more in normal “topical” journals, because they are supposed to put to peer review everything which is in scope and which is not obvious crap.

          • Zephir

            /* if an editor bypasses the peer review system or applies it in a dishonest way, one can and should blame him (but see below) */

            This is also the reason, why cold fusion studies aren’t allowed to be published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. It makes them distrustful automatically,

      • Roland

        It should be obvious to any interested observer that some people are for sale, including their opinions, and that some of these people are scientists whose opinions can be bought for chump change, given the stakes, to the general discredit and detriment of the larger enterprise of science.

        Setting the temperament of a professional group towards a particular view on a specific topic is a sociological endeavour based on a rigorous application of well developed methodologies and sufficient funding to hire a few ethically challenged operatives and ‘experts’.

        Pretty simple stuff for folks who’ve had a lot of practise, at moulding opinions, when combined with the power to influence hiring policies and grant funding for conflicting theories and research.

        People are odd reluctantly to seem the fool; though they are often the easiest to deceive precisely because of this.

        At the end of the day we are tribal creatures, and the more insecure we are the more we are driven by a need to belong; and the more we voluntarily avoid unorthodoxies, perceived or otherwise, that threaten membership in the group.

        The number of people that will renounce tenure, or career, or income, or the good will of their fellows, friends and neighbours over matters of principle have never been large; no matter what the stakes.

        Part of what distinguishes people like Rossi is that for them no price is to high to pay to follow their own truth wherever it leads them; which is largely how our species advances.

        • tobalt

          As a scientist myself, i keep preaching in These boards that Most scientists are in fact open to stuff such as lenr and not prejudiced. For such remarks, i usually receive Strong Opposition from ppl outside Science who frankly cannot judge the situation. I hope this article reinforces my claims.

          The Problem is that scientists Do have to work for their money as do all other employees. And money comes from funded Projects. The Problem is therefore at sociological or political level indeed.

          Dont mistake anti lenr preachers for the majority of scientists.

          Likewise, though, dont mistake any bullshit free energy claims as serious research if It cannot Display the same level of confluence of evidence as can lenr and all the established theories. New claims should be treated cautiously. That is Part of the integrity of Science.

          • Axil Axil

            If you run two electrode in a solution of potassium carbonate and boiled down the solution a bit. Then take the residual solution and put it on a photographic emulsion where you will find particle tracks. What do you do next?

          • Zephir

            First of all You should compare the blind experiment, because the potassium is known to be radioactive by itself – and quite a lot, btw.


            This is also what the honest scientific method means: once you find something unusual, you should put all effort into falsification of this effect, not confirmation. You should simply attempt to eliminate all possible sources of errors and misleading conclusions.

          • Zephir

            /* the problem is that scientists do have to work for their money as do all
            other employees. And money comes from funded Projects. The Problem is
            therefore at sociological or political level indeed */

            Only partially only. The scientists also have academic freedom and they itself decide, which finding will get funding and which one not. For me the situation is perfectly clear: the findings and ideas, which help the future occupation of physicists (graphene, string theory) are promoted – these ones, which are threatening it (like the cold fusion) are ignored and prematurely dismissed.

            What you’re saying essentially means, that the scientists must sacrifice portion of their academic freedom on behalf of projects, which are contributory for whole human civilization – not for projects interesting and beneficial for scientists only (like the string theory or collider research). Because scientists itself apparently aren’t able to prioritize their own activities.

          • Mats002

            I just got an answer from Linda Gough, from the administration of COPE, to my letter below in this thread. Following her advice I find this important text:

            It [COPE Code of Conduct] also established a mechanism for dealing with complaints against COPE member editors that could not be resolved by the journal’s own complaints procedure.
            So: this is a way to go for LENR paper writers, please use it!

            Dear Mats,

            Thank you for your email to COPE.

            We expect all of our member editors to follow the COPE Code of Conduct. If you have a concern about a journal that is a member of COPE, we do have a process for dealing with complaints or concerns. Please see the details of our process on our website

            Kind regards

            Linda Gough

            Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

            Tel: +44 (0) 1379 854181
            Fax +44 (0) 844 443 1087

            Registered charity No 1123023
            Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120
            Registered office: COPE, 22 Nelson Close, Harleston, Norfolk IP20 9HL, UK


          • Mats002

            Note: More than 5000 scientific journals are members of COPE including Nature (Editor-in-Chief: Sir Philip Campbell).

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Why put so much effort into seeking Nature’s seal of approval?

            Just let those who are enamored with Nature go on their merry uninformed way.

            This to some extent may also apply to journals:

            “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

      • GreenWin

        Doubtful. Were anarchy the rule we would have seen much greater progress these past 25 years. Science caters to an “elite” supported by solipsistic power cults.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Bernie’s said that he blames the leaders for having ulterior motives. One can do so, but it’s not an efficient approach because the leaders will just defend themselves by saying that it’s not their fault if some people followed their opinion. It’s like wave-particle dualism. Scientific community behaves collectively like a wave, but if interrogated, they suddenly behave as individuals.

      • Zephir

        The system of science is based on meritocracy.

        • it should be, but it is too often cooptation which drive recognition.
          Note also the role of very few decision makers in scientific journals who if wrong or manipulated can have the impact of an oligarchy.

          As said here, the one who decided that cold fusion would die were not the physicist (who just begged the editors to kill it), but the high impact journal editors.

          They were under influence of physicist and of government funded labs, but they decided to kill LENR by rejecting even good papers.

          note that for some people, for a fact to be recognized it need to be published in high impact journal, and as said here, this is the only journals who can block a paper without ay explanation to give.

          A speciality pjournal cannt refuse a matching papr of fair quality, but Nature, Science, Cell, can reject anything they decide and nobody can critocitize.

          thus people who ask that LENR be published in high impact papers, ask it to be published in the only kind of journal that can reject good papers.

  • Oystein Lande

    If anyone where to recieve a Nobel price it would be the physcists that actually discovered Ni-H dry cell excess heat. Not an engineer that made a commercial product of it.


    Actually even F&P did protect the use of Nickel in Cold fusion commercial applications by their 1989 patent. Too bad they focused more on wet type electrolytic cells, and did nót triy more the Ni-H dry cells….

    Martin Fleischmann patent

    Claims section, where also Nickel is mentioned.

  • Curbina
  • Zephir

    Well, the “merit” in contemporary science really means the importance, but for scientists only – not for another people (tax payers) who are paying it. The findings (like the graphene) and ideas (like relativity) which bring the research opportunity for many other people are celebrated – whereas the ones which are threatening it (like the cold fusion) are ignored if not dismissed.

    In AWT this attitude is understandable up to certain extent, as it’s analogous to dark matter effect (which has also repulsive character) – but now we are getting to understand Nature even deeper – so we should elevate the science above schematic occupational driven criteria.