Forbes: Is Cold Fusion Feasible or a Fraud? (Ethan Siegel)

Thanks to georgehants for posting a link to a new article on the Forbes website by Ethan Siegel titled: “Is Cold Fusion Feasible, Or is it a Fraud?” Link his here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/23/is-cold-fusion-feasible-or-is-it-a-fraud/#4979732f1903

This is another article from an established media entity on the subject of cold fusion lately, so for some reason there’s more attention being paid in the editorial rooms. Siegel focuses on the work of Andrea Rossi and the E-Cat and testing results that have been published. He uses the example of the Mechanical Turk to show that some things that seem real actually turn out to be frauds and fakes, and suggests cold fusion could be something similar. He suggests a creative use of power meters in tests could be used to give false readings.

His conclusion:

This doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re lying, that LENR is impossible or that there’s fraud going on. But it isn’t the job of science to prove that someone is fooling us; it’s the job of a good scientist to prove to the world that we aren’t fooling ourselves when we make an extraordinary claim. As soon as that bar is cleared — and that starts with the people working on this making an extraordinary effort to demonstrate that bar is cleared — we can promote LENR or cold fusion to the realm of real, robust and incredible science. But until that day, we should all remain skeptical. In the words of Richard Feynman:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself. And you are the easiest person to fool.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    A fair conclusion. I like the word “we” in “when we make an extraordinary claim”. Almost like an implicit call for funding for CF scientific research.

    • Gerard McEk

      According Bob Greenyer that happens next week or the week after.

      • sam

        Bob Greenyer georgehants
        5 hours ago
        I will speak about it during ICCF20.

        It needs cooperation of a party and for their claims to be true. But it will be 100% conclusive that LENR is real if these pre-requisites are met.

      • artefact

        From Lenr-Forum:
        Mark Underwood wrote:
        “Melvin Miles. The ash is simple helium. I liked this experiment because
        it went back to basics. Even the now politically incorrect moniker ‘cold
        fusion’ got back the respect it deserved, but lost, decades ago. It was
        truly a Pons and Fleischmann memorial project.

  • Buck

    Compared to prior vitriolic pieces by Siegel arguing against the reality of LENR, this is a very real change. It is a movement towards acceptance, taken one small step at a time.

    Another small step in the right direction for Main Stream Media.

  • Frechette

    There must be a lot of fools all over the world because they observed unexplained excess heat in LENR experiments according to this scribbler.

  • Bob Matulis

    SSM black box with no power input would be nice. Until this is produced there is legitimate reason for skepticism.

    • Andrew

      Here I’ll fix that for you.

      Rigorous scientific testing, proof of isotopic shifts, conformation of excess heat or detection of any type of nuclear emission would be nice. Until this is produced there is a legitimate reason for skepticism.

      • Mats002

        If you were right – which I am afraid you are not – LENR would be accepted by now. Me too was naive thinking that kind of evidence would be sufficient but hey – after 5+ years of following the LENR community, both pros and cons – what you suggest just isn’t so.

        • TVulgaris

          Some skeptics need no legitimate reason based on the evidence, they simply need the check in hand, or recognition is some places, or a serious departmental presence in fossil fuels or nuclear generation, or…and the list of reasons they will consider legitimate continues at some length.

        • Andrew

          Mats, I have been following the Rossi saga since before ecatworld and to this date I have not seen 1 independent replication with the exact same setup. I believe it is there and I believe it will happen. My problem isn’t with the data it’s with our current scientific dogma. There is absolutely NO REWARD structure set up for people that confirm others works. There is no Nobel prize for being the second to discover something. This is why we hear about all these “studies” being done. They call the studies and not facts because no peer review has been done. And why is that? Because scientific prestige ($$$ more pay)comes from publishing as many articles in the most prestigious journals as possible, not for fact checking the competition.

          • Warthog

            Andrew is not referring to Rossi, but the larger research “universe” of LENR. All criteria for genuine scientifically valid proof have long been satisfied, AND IGNORED.

            The anti-LENR position has nothing whatsoever to do with science….it is about protecting multi-million dollar budgets for physics research.

      • roseland67

        Andrew,

        Agreed,

        Rigorous testing & replication, of claimed successful experiments by multiple non affiliated sources showing excess heat and/or element transmutation.
        Then Ethen Siegel AND Lubos Motl will write positive articles about LENR,
        Until then? No chance, no way, no how.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The best evidence for the reality of LENR (which journalists choose to ignore) is the Mitsubishi transmutations. Pairs of deuterons are reacting with heavier elements and transmuting them. This leads me to believe that what was taking place in Pons and Fleischmann’s cell was a fusion-fission reaction that turned deuterium into helium without a 24 MeV gamma ray.

    2 D + Pd > Cd* > Pd + He 24 MeV (of kinetic energy. No gamma ray)

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iNy47-PKxoQ/T2ziOYJ2RvI/AAAAAAAASLo/OcvAZx1OnVo/s1600/LENRJapantransmute.png

    • Mats002

      They might fake it you know – where you there at the time? No? How can you tell?

      And if you actually WHERE there, did your sences see everything as it really was? They might had a radioactive test sample laying around under the table which someone forgot about. No fraud, only coincidence not knowing.

      This kind of scrutiny is what the LENR experimenters are up against (really, I am dead serious).

      No other science field need to face this scrutiny. And we know why also.

      EMDrive (Shawyer) know what all this is about. To good to be true. Until the then…

      • Alan DeAngelis

        It’s not real unless Rachel Maddow says it is.

      • Ciaranjay

        Yes indeed. Freedom from the shackles for those able to think.
        And also true that young blood often allows a fresh point of view over what might have become rigid dogma.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS

      And there are pairs of electrons, ~ in the metal hydride bonds, D~M~D. Wouldn’t they reduced the Coulomb barrier? It’s not like the sun where the electrons are stripped away and brut force is required to sustain fusion. It’s more subtle than the hot fusion approach.

      http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/dragonsdogma/images/a/a9/Cyclops.png/revision/latest?cb=20131030165830

      • Ciaranjay

        Yes, if the effect is not real then this merry-go-round could go on indefinately. Just as there are those who view LENR as rubbish and will not entertain any debate about it, so there are others who are convinced that the dream is true and will always find a reason to believe. Most people are somewhere in the middle of course.
        If you want an example of an effect that is not real see Orbo where it is now clear it was a scam but some still believe (because it can never be proved 100% it was a scam, there is always some doubt possible).

        As you can see LENR is one of those areas that promises so much that it generates a lot of hope and emotion.

        I agree that the scientific process is the best approach but there have been published papers and they are just ignored.
        Look up the recent DTRA release from Dr Pamela Mosier-Boss.
        As I said above, the science community is prone to the same human flaws as the rest of us. If something is out of favour then walls can be built.
        Of course if LENR is real then science will have to get involved to provide a deeper explanation and theory.
        The good news is of course that, through human curiosity, the truth will be found. Its just that it might take longer than we wish.
        I will stick around for a while to see what happens.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Zephir

    Also, the science has no tools how to enforce the scientists into replication (or just reviewing) of findings, which they don’t like, because they compete or threat their research in another areas. In this case the infallible process of scientific progress gets frozen. We have a tools for finding of truth, but we don’t use them.

  • greggoble

    Let’s look at the obvious… I’m really busy, 58 years old and pops is 81 years old. We’re building a two story house all by ourselves, just the two of us. I’m hoping Frank (or someone) will write an article that incorporates all of the following…

    The U.S. Secretary of Defense report to Congress has been delayed. The Forbes article hints at fraud and encourages skepticism. LENR researchers and followers seek credibility. E-Cat World, amongst others, heralds the 2016 DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency) report, yay the U.S. government says cold fusion is real.

    Yet two of the authors of that report, Lawrence Forsley and Pamela Boss, are credited for the LENR patents (out of Naval research labs) which are now held by JWK and the Global Energy Corporation. Note that these patents used to be held by the Secretary of the U.S. Navy (around 2006/2007).

    By the way, the report makes no mention of the patents nor does it mention the Louis DeChiaro presentation.

    He joined the US Navy as a civilian Physicist in September, 2006 and since 2009 has been performing investigations in LENR physics and supporting the EMC efforts of Branch Q51 at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA. During the period 2010-2012 DeChiaro was on special assignment at the Naval Research Labs, Washington, D.C. in their experimental LENR group.

    Nor does the 2016 DTRA report make any mention of the Global Energy Corporation developments. Note that GEC, whose chief scientist is Lawrence Forsley, says that they developed the (cold fusion/LENR) Small Modular Generator (SMG); which they didn’t, the U.S. government did. Incredibly GEC boasts that they “are currently negotiating several new SMG construction contracts ranging from 250 MWe to 5GWe (WOW) around the world.

    Also, there are a few who speculate that the latest U.S. warship, commanded by Captain Kirk, is powered by a cold fusion reactor and others who wonder if cold fusion is real. Of course it is… this technology would NOT be released for commercial development unless the DoD had conquered and deployed it… PERIOD. Obviously.

    Not too far…

    In the near distant future…

    The next generation in fact.

    Will look back on this generation…

    As the last of the fire burning era, and know that…

    The term ‘energy shortage’ was a term for un-enlightened minds.

    gbg-peace-love-and-granola

  • Warthog

    There is a huge gulf between “Rossi is a fraud” (possible) and “LENR is a fraud” (not possible). I long ago quit paying attention to exactly which skeptopath has exactly which slight variation of negativity.

  • Ged

    That is weird. They were dealing with such spam a couple days ago, guess it is still going.

    • Warthog

      Yes, repeatedly. How many replications are necessary?? Toyota replicated the Mitsubishi work on transmutation. That BY ITSELF should have been more than enough proof of the reality of the phenomenon.

  • cashmemorz
  • Job001

    What is good science? This occurs when we do the scientific method when we create statistically falsifiable hypothesis followed by using careful unbiased observations and then use agreed upon statistical tests in an attempt to discredit, refine or alter our hypothesis.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    Good skepticism occurs when we develop and test proposed and/or alternate falsifiable hypothesis and do the scientific method to deny or confirm reported claim. The new alternate claims may include alternate explanations such as fraud but must be backed up with statistically valid data and observations, otherwise these are just nonsense untested hypothesis.

    Note:In absolutely no way does claiming scam or fraud constitute science without unquestionable data and valid statistical correlation. Inevitably such claims are false and statistically invalid. An excellent explaination for claims of scam or fraud is the modern science of cognitive bias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

    Inevitably fear of losing jobs or income or favored science “models” of reality or science reputation are excellent bias models for explaining false pathoskeptic non-science claims.

    My current view is several varieties of LENR show total undeniable validity at the base level of demonstrated heat and ash. This level of observational science was suitable as a basis for the world altering Manhattan project. We now have a literature base of several thousand reports from hundreds of scientists, most highly esteemed. We now also have zero basis for the false claims of fraud or scam. This means LENR is real until statistically and scientifically proven otherwise; Let the engineering continue, full speed ahead!

    • Mats002
    • greggoble

      Oil is the most traded commodity on planet Earth; surpassing housing, food and medical combined. Ethan Siegel seems to think scientists working on science that would disrupt that should defend themselves against his LENR ignorance by contacting him setting him straight. They actually have bigger fish to fry.

      As far as the scientific method goes… an open mind and experimentation serves science much better. I checked it out; Ethan hasn’t done any cold fusion/LENR experimentation and doesn’t seem to have much of a mind that could be open. He isn’t a leading scientific figure in any regard.

    • Ciaranjay

      Personally I agree with you, in my view LENR is a real thing and hopefully should be “proven” soon. Of course I could be wrong.

      Can I ask a question please (or several)?
      What the heck is a “pathoskeptic”?
      Is someone who does not believe in LENR a pathoskeptic?
      Is someone who does not believe in Rossi’s E-Cat a pathoskeptic?
      Is someone who not believe in UFO’s a pathoskeptic?

      Is it to do with ignoring a mountain of evidence?
      In which case is someone who denies global warming a pathoskeptic?

      Is it an actual real term with a definition or is it just an abusive label used to attack people who have a different opinion?

      I really would like to know.

      Thanks.

      • Job001

        “Pathoskeptic” is a fairly new term. It does not refer to a typical skeptic wherein typical skepticism is healthy but to skepticism taken too far into irrational denial of available facts. In general, someone who exhibits irrational pathosketicism often uses easy short cuts such as name calling rather than doing the hard work of healthy science. Unfortunately, people can be overly skeptical for a variety of biases including just plain lazy ignorance. Newcomers wishing for others to do their literature research that only they can do. Another common variety insists on irrational standards of “proof” such as “being able to purchase one” when scientific methods are required for research science.
        IMO, a “pathoskeptic” need not be associated with any particular knowledge field nor is it an abusive label but rather a label necessary to distinguish between healthy appropriate scientific skepticism and skepticism that has become excessive, extremist, irrational or pathological, or in general biased where a non-biased scientific outlook is apropos.

        • Ciaranjay

          Job001 thank you.
          As you say, there are different levels of proof and different levels of skepticism. I suppose somebody has to be last to realize there is a train coming down the track.
          Name calling is certainly unhelpful to a civilized and balanced discussion.

        • Great answer!

      • tlp

        Same questions for hydrinos and Randell Mills/BrLP SunCell.
        I quess many people in this forum believe in LENR but not hydrinos. Are those semi pathoskeptic?

        • Ciaranjay

          Well this is the problem with a term that may be subjective and perhaps open to interpretation as a term of abuse.

      • INVENTOR INVENTED

        Its a guy that was banned from an LENR chatroom. They couldnt stand his negative personality. Calls himslf pathosceptic.

  • greggoble

    This is a comment posted on the recent Forbes article. Let’s take a look see and find which page the DoD LENR 2017 funding request is on and what it’s all about…

    US DOD seems to think this (LENR) is real: see 2017 DOD funding request: https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt537/CRPT-114hrpt537.pdf

    • NT

      Page 87 of the report is about LENR…

      • greggoble

        Thanks, I had only gotten to pg 50.

  • georgehants

    “We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
    – Werner Heisenberg

    • cashmemorz

      Or ” Knowing what question to ask is half of the road to getting the (right) answer”

    • INVENTOR INVENTED

      Profound.

      • greggoble

        Quote Pharis Williams

        Human nature is such that we do like a well broken in pair of shoes and that it’s difficult for the human mind to visualize something new.

        He than goes on to quote a fellow that came up to him after a presentation that he gave…

        There are three types of scientists:

        – Innovators (less than a 10th of 1% of all scientists)

        They can see (visualize) something that had never been seen before. They are usually young and new to the field of science.

        – Testers (about 5% of scientists)

        They are the ones that, once the innovator told them what was going on in their mind, can both see and devise a way to test the idea.

        – Keepers of the Flame (all the rest of scientists, around 95%)

        They can say (repeat) what they had heard before but they can’t see anything new, nor can they devise a way to test anything new.

        `- end quotes

        Creative thinking, thinking out of the box, and inventive thinking may be something that can be taught, or developed in a person, yet not everyone can pick it up as a skill. I believe that it does require a mind that is sort of built that way, similar to the few who can visualize things three dimensionally.

        From

        Pharis Williams on ‘Gravity Control & Clean Fusion’ (at the 18 min and 30 second mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB2wIBhAoVs

        This bit is fun…

        From the Idea Champions, a company that teaches people to think creatively (innovate). Published on Jul 22, 2016…

        “The Heart of Innovation – It All Began with Balls” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qHpTDbD3a4

  • Of interest on LENR Forum: Alan Smith, after stating flatly that Penon is planning to appear before the court, had this to add:

    You’ll have to trust me on this one. I will make a further prediction which it actually guesswork in part. But I’m not telling you which part. It is about something that currently seems impossible – and it may well be – courts are a lottery at times. Rossi has changed Lawyers to a practice with experience in technical matters in order to present -when the opportunity arises – technical proof that the 1MW plant is real and it works. This proof will (I think) be in the form of one or more totally independent replications of the technology by serious entities.

    But we will have to wait and see what happens.

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3811-Rossi-vs-IH-Update-Sep-9-20%E2%80%93-James-A-Bass-now-a-Third-Party-in-IH%E2%80%99s-Counter-Comp/?postID=37453#post37453

    • Ged

      Easily testable predictions at least–we just get to wait and see.

    • Obvious

      A replication (working or otherwise) will not prove anything about what happened at Doral.

  • sam

    This comment was on EgoOut blog.I wondered if anyone
    has an opinion on it.Thanks

    AnonymousSeptember 25, 2016 at 7:20 AM

    I will repeat a previous comment. Getting the waste heat out of the customer facility is as simple as opening the loading bay (and we know there are loading bays, as the E-Cat container had to be gotten INTO the building) door, and turning on a portable industrial-sized fan. What neither Rossi or the customer would have done was to install PERMANENT oversized heat removal elements. That Rossi knows this is shown by his use of a genset to provide the needed extra power to run one of the first 1MW tests.

    Reply

    • sam

      But the people from industrial heat would

      have seen an open bay door and a large fan.

      they would have noted that somewhere or take

      a picture.

      A delivery person or neighbouring business would

      have seen the fan or felt the heat.

      Amazing how people cover the test site story in

      every way but not asking was a fan at a loading dock.

      At least i have not heard of it.

      • Obvious

        I don’t disagree that the door (or doors) could have been open, but were they open all the time? The Plant almost never stopped, or so the story goes.

        • Ciaranjay

          This is a good point.
          At the end of the day experiment trumps theory, as long as the experimental results can be replicated.
          Experimenters do the experiments, engineers do the making and theorists do the explaining. Sometimes the theory comes first and the experimenter confirms or sometimes the experiment comes first.

          Basically there are two routes to LENR;
          The science route means having a replicable experiment or a good theory, you do not need both to start with. Sometimes a theoretical explanation can take many years. Unfortunately it is difficult to get mainstream scientists to take LENR seriously due to unfortunate history and peer pressure.
          Alternatively just build a working device and sell it, as Rossi plans to do.

    • Ged

      Honestly, I’m not sure what that comment is trying to say. But, the already present roof vent is the right size and shape to easily remove all 1 MW of heat via air cooled heat exchanger (like the size and shape we see positioned directly under said vent), so the loading doors could stay closed no problem.

    • roseland67

      Sam,

      It would be possible to calculate, IF,
      Rossi indicated how much of the 1MW
      Of heat went into the product and how much had to be disposed of via this “portable industrial fan”, you suggest.

      The energy balance is rather simple,
      Assuming that whatever air you discharged via the fan could be made up thru another entrance by “cooler” air.
      (Discharge on hot side of building make up on cool side of building helps).
      There is your dt,
      Cp of air at x temp/humidity etc
      Solve for mass flow would tell you how much air you need the fan to move.

      But Rossi has not given that info.

      • Stephen

        The following is quite a lot of speculation on my side but I wonder if some of it is relevant or makes sense?

        It wouldn’t be a very efficient device if it was running based on heat but also let the heat escape through the walls.

        imagine a kiln a water boiler or even your oven at home had no wall insulation. Its probably not recommended but as a lad I used to sit on the lids of my parents old Aga in the winter after long day collecting fire wood. I didn’t cook my back side doing it though. Fortunately ;).

        based on the recycled water temperature oI imagine a chemical bath of some kind or something maintained at a little above 60 degrees C

        Waste heat by it self would be inefficient and should be insulated with materials with as low R or U values as possible. What applies to the roof of the building if insulated also applies to the walls and roof if any of the device. I understand typical U values of insulated walls and ceilings are small fractions of a W/m2/K

        I suppose we know the Sq m of the surface of the device. If we assume it is 60 deC inside and 30 deg out side and a rather high value for the U value of 0.20 W/m2/K. It should be possible to estimate the amount t of heat that can leak throug the walls of the device. I suspect it is quite low it certainly would not cook any one. The additional thermal energy clearly goes else where not throughthe walls of the device.

        Waste heat would be in the form of final product temperatures or the temperatures of waste materials such as processed chemicals or some thing that could not be efficiently recovered also at 60 degrees. I imagine what energy did not get used for endothermic processes operating at about 60 degrees C or above would go into the final temperature of the product or waste materials before cooling.

        I suppose Those processed materials could ether be safe waste that can be dumped in drainage or more likely cooled from 60 degrees to ambient temperature before storing. I suppose this cooling would require a second heat exchanger to dump the heat that could not be usefully recovered Into an external water supply that was either drained or cooled outside the building from 60 degrees to to ambient before recirculating.

        Ideally though I suppose the waste heat would be used to heat the source materials for the product before use. To increase efficiency even further.

        I wonder if vapourisation of Methyl acetate, that vapourises at 56.9 deg C or some other similar acetate or formate. Could be important In the process. Perhaps in some kind of recycling process to convert it back to it to methanol and acetic acid with reactions with acids and basis such as Sodium hydroxide?

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_acetate

        https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chris/MTT.pdf

        i suppose the the latent heat of vapourisation of methyl acetate could be a significant factor in absorbing heat.

        i suppose the the acetic acid and methanol could be used chemically else where in the process

        There are many industrial uses for acetic acid for example perhaps the acetic acid was used to make palladium acetate for example from palladium sponge that could then be usedo make Paladium nano wires or other thin film structures.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palladium(II)_acetate

        I wonder if platinum acetate and nickel acetate can be processed in similar ways.

        of course the ideal efficient closed loop would be if the methanol was used towards the end of the process to regenerate themethyle acetate. And the energy was consumed in producing the product. But I’m not sure if there is a process for that step as well.

        I’m not sure what quantities of materials would be involved, if any waste materials are safe to vent or drain or if any of those processes are exothermicor endothermic. But I suppose the vaporization would atleast absorb some of the heat.

    • GiveADogABone
  • Bob Greenyer

    Sounds interesting, but that is not the demo – a little messy too.

    Keep thinking though!

  • Ciaranjay

    Thanks bachcole.
    The problem is that as a label it can be subjectively applied.
    So someone might claim a person who denies global warming is a skeptopath.

    I do agree that there are those in the science community who through prejudice or arrogance will not change their minds till the last minute.

    But I think most scientists are just busy people who have to answer to whoever provides their grants. The more famous ones get many letters from cranks asking them to drop everything and look at their pet theory.

    It is a great pity that LENR has been pushed to the fringes, but LENR science will continue and the truth will be uncovered, it just takes longer.

  • peter gluck

    Dear Friends,
    One my blog Ego Out I gave a rather detailed answer to Ethan’s paper:

    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-25-2016-dear-ethan-lenr-is.html

    If he will read it, for sure he will not like it

    No problem, I did not liked his paper eithr and not only for its content. He uses an arrogant and lazy physicost-supremacist approach.
    But his conclusions are correct- no conclusions at all.

    peter

  • georgehants

    Roger, please try to understand my view, the point is a fair reward for those that do most for society, from society, with no financial or investment input beyond society democratically choosing the areas most needed and then desired.
    A fair return for all, from those unable to work being cared for, to the scientists etc that with their successful work give the most to society. (such as drugs, Cold Fusion etc.
    In Mr. Rossi’s case (if genuine) I have suggested in financial terms a reward of anything from 50 million to a billion and pro-rata rewards for all those that have contributed.
    Economics at base is nothing but the organisation of labour.
    Only those giving most to society need to be rewarded appropriately above the fair basic income given to all.
    A financial worker or manipulator is completely unnecessary, millions of wasted jobs, a road sweeper is important a billionaire has no importance of any kind to society, beyond being rewarded if he is gifted in organisation.
    Equality means every child starts from the same place, no advantage from inheritance etc. they truly live their own lives and are rewarded solely on their contribution to society.
    You suggest, who is more important in a free democracy a financial manipulator greedily working for vast riches for himself or a Cold Fusion discoverer that releases all information for the World to improve on and billions gain and is rewarded by society, with for example the billion I suggest above.
    A long and complex subject, made difficult by the vast majority of people not realizing that only labour is important, money has no use beyond a simple credit system used for everyday bookkeeping of peoples credits.
    The present capitalist system is nothing but a Dogma followed just as the Dogma believed by the vast majority that Cold Fusion is impossible.
    Anything is impossible to a closed-mind.

  • georgehants

    Roger, many thanks for reply, I think we have gone as far as we can on this Website.
    It is in no way philosophical but hard Facts, of if one is satisfied with a system that solely through monetary considerations allows Cold Fusion etc. to be hidden etc. for 30 years, with Rossi almost six years, while millions die and suffer, including American children etc. or if a better, fairer, more intelligent system can be used that would have seen Cold Fusion freely Researched in earnest Worldwide from the beginning and Rossi et al avoiding such common things as this crazy court case, with people who’s only interest is selfish riches for absolutely no input.
    Once discovered only the people who research, design and manufacture Cold Fusion devices are important, it is a self made market just as clean water and basic food, drugs etc. are self made demands, requiring only the number of people involved to be rewarded, every person in the World then shares the wealth of such items and Cold Fusion etc.
    Best

    • bachcole

      When people use the phrase “hard Facts” to make a philosophical point, then I know that we are not talking the same language and I know that we will never agree.

      • georgehants

        Roger, do you not think that a little more was covered in our chat than can be dismissed with a reply such as yours.
        Does one have to agree on everything before a conversation can be worthwhile?
        It would help if you would be kind enough to put up the Evidence disputing my claimed hard Facts, that millions are dying and suffering Worldwide through lack of basic needs.

  • Gerrit

    According to Siegel, scientists must contact him personally and kindly request him to review their work. And that is how science is done in the eyes of Ethan Siegel:

    “If there were real, legitimate scientists who had evidence and
    repeatable research that met the criteria I have laid out for “this is
    how you do science,” they would have contacted me and offered to show me
    their research over the past five years. That is what scientists who
    have legitimate results do.”

    Ethan Siegel is apparently not capable of reading the peer reviewed literature published on the subject.

  • Eyedoc

    oh I’m sure they’re spending…….just not for public knowledge….big ‘dark’ budgets you know

    • INVENTOR INVENTED

      I know.

  • hum,
    there was reporters, people ready to testify what they have seen, but as we see for LENR , the autorities like SciAm pretended they have nothing.

    they had, but they said they did not have, thus they could pretend to be rational in denying reality.

    Jed made an article on Wright brother
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf

    • Bruce__H

      The Scientific American report ended up asking for more information. Seems rational to me.

      Thanks for the link to Jed;’s article. I haven’t finished it yet but so far it is quite interesting. I begin to see, however , that the general whining and self-pitying tone of the LENR community has been in place for a while. I love the MFMP precisely because they have mainly dropped this tone.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    You have to admit that Siegel does have a gift for logic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jt5ibfRzw

  • roseland67

    That’s what you called me about 5-6 years ago