[Notes for new readers: We performed extensive reporting and videotaped documentation on the Rossi Energy Catalyzer topic in 2011. Please see http://rossiportal.com.
This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]

Andrea Rossi, an Italian man who claims to have invented a practical low-energy nuclear reaction device, will not have his device tested and evaluated by the University of Bologna.

Last summer, Rossi said he had started a research contract with the university to allow its researchers to study his “Energy Catalyzer.” But that didn’t happen.

Today, Dario Braga, director of scientific research at the university, told New Energy Times that the university waited long enough. It terminated the contract because Rossi did not fulfill his agreement to make the first progress payment, Braga said.

“The contract ended on January 15 and has been canceled by the university,” Braga said. “Therefore, there is no further relationship between the university and Rossi or his company.”

In October, Rossi claimed that he sold a device to an unidentified customer, but there is no factual evidence to support this. Rossi’s failure to make a payment to the university casts doubt on the sale.

Throughout 2011, Rossi devised secretive and increasingly elaborate “E-Cats” that he claimed were producing high levels – in fact commercially viable levels – of excess heat. He arranged several press conferences and paid for invited foreign professors to visit.

But the tests were never long enough, the data was always poor and the devices were always too complicated to allow a definitive conclusion in Rossi’s favor. Regardless, Rossi captured the hearts and goodwill of fans and believers worldwide.

Technology journalist Mats Lewan reported in Ny Teknik on March 10, 2011, that Rossi “is now paying 500,000 Euros to the Physics Department of Bologna University, following a new agreement.”

But Rossi apparently lied to his fans last March about the university contract. No contract was signed in March. Paolo Capiluppi, the head of the University of Bologna Physics Department, signed the contract at the end of May, and Rossi signed it on June 21, 2011.

Hanno Essén, a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology who was paid by Rossi to come to Bologna to evaluate his device, told New Energy Times on July 15, 2011, how he thought Rossi was planning to pay for the university research.

“According to what I heard,” Essén said, “the University of Bologna contract will become active in late October, because then Rossi will get money from Athens, but this is only speculation. According to the schedule I heard, nothing will happen until October.”

But the Greek connection, Defkalion, fizzled long before October. Defkalion failed to make its first scheduled payment to Rossi on Aug. 1. The following week, Rossi made a connection with an American investor, John Preston of Quantum Energy Technologies, but that fizzled, too.

Rossi met with Preston Aug. 2-4 in Boston and drew up an agreement and defined test parameters. On Rossi’s invitation, Preston and his colleagues went to see and test Rossi’s device on Sept. 5 and 6. But it didn’t work, and they left.

On Oct. 7, a month after Preston walked away, Ny Teknik reported that Rossi canceled the agreement with Preston.

“We had a preliminary agreement with a very important party in the U.S.,” Rossi said, “but when we received the final draft, it included conditions that our lawyers said that we should not accept.”

September 2011 photo outside Rossi’s showroom. Left to right: unidentified, Andrea Rossi, Sergio Focardi, John Preston. Photo courtesy Jim Dunn.

[Note for new readers: This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]

By Lewis G. Larsen

To the Editor:

Thank you for your efforts to help communicate the facts about the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs on the New Energy Times Web site. I wish to remind your readers about a fascinating 1994 paper called “Possible Theories of Cold Fusion” by professors Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, and Giuliano Preparata. I think that your readers will find this paper to be a fascinating and worthwhile article. It has stood the test of time in many ways.

It was published in Il Nuovo Cimento[1], a formerly well-known physics journal. The journal was a peer-reviewed publication of the Italian Physical Society and was subsequently absorbed into the European Physical Journal family when the European Union was formed.

Before May 2008, we had never encountered this paper in our many Internet searches for citable prior publications on low-energy nuclear reaction research theory. But in May 2008, it suddenly popped up on a search.

Since May 2005, when our preprint of “Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces” appeared on the Cornell physics arXiv, no one in the LENR field had ever mentioned this 1994 paper to us. Even Fleischmann, with whom I have met and spoken, neglected to mention this paper to me. When I found their paper, I contacted Pons through a third-party. I told him that we had followed the path they had advocated in their paper and Pons responded enthusiastically that we certainly did. On May 12, 2009, I also wrote about our discovery of this paper in an e-mail to the CMNS list.

On reflection, I realized why “cold fusion” promoters had never mentioned this paper and why it had been completely ignored. Fleischmann, Pons, and Preparata had advocated a unique approach to LENR theory. But it was not the simplistic two-body D+D –> 4He +heat “cold fusion” paradigm that still haunts the field.

Even though we had been unaware of this 1994 paper and the recommendations within it, their rough conceptual roadmap turned out to be the general route that we eventually followed. Although we were initially perceived as outsiders to the LENR field, we ultimately developed, with rigor, what Fleischmann, Pons, and Preparata had hazily sketched out 18 years earlier with their direct as well as indirect references to many-body collective quantum effects, implicit references to surface plasmons and explicit acknowledgement of high local electric fields.

Although Fleischmann, Pons, and Preparata did not manage to articulate any of the key underlying details behind the correct theoretical physics, their scientific instincts were conceptually on the right track. We ultimately developed a useful theoretical approach to help scientists understand LENRs. Preparata’s insistence of the importance of quantum electrodynamics was spot-on.

Fleischmann, Pons, and Preparata clearly recognized the crucial role that many-body collective effects, in whatever physics might eventually be used, play to successfully explain “cold fusion” phenomena. They reiterated that theme several times in their paper. They even wrote about the potential need to have very high local electric fields on cathode surfaces, a key feature of our theory that some cold fusion advocates have failed to grasp.

In 1994, most researchers in the field still thought that LENRs were a bulk phenomena. Had Fleischmann, Pons, and Preparata all realized it was definitely a surface effect, and if they had been able to continue, Preparata may well have beaten us. If fact, they describe surface plasmons without specifically calling them that. Preparata, a theoretical physicist, would have known about surface plasmons and he would have eventually connected the dots.

“The phenomenology of ‘cold fusion,’ must be based on models which take full account of the collective behavior of the proton (deuteron) and electron plasmas,” the authors wrote.

Without knowing it, the authors also described the Born-Oppenheimer breakdown which allows the coupling of surface proton or deuteron oscillations with those of nearby surface plasmon electrons, which in turn, allows the creation of nuclear-strength electric fields which lead to the creation of heavy electrons, which can react directly with electromagnetically coupled protons or deuterons to make neutrons.

“We note also that reactions at metal surfaces could well be described by the macroscopic wave functions which allow for the coupling of the reacting species to the collective modes of the electron plasmas,” the authors wrote.

Fleischmann, Pons, and Preparata were not thinking in terms of an e + p weak reaction, but they certainly had the other pieces right. In the last paragraph of their paper, the authors summarize their thinking.

“The particular mechanisms by which this may happen still await clarification,” the authors wrote. “However, here again, we say that possible explanations of such phenomena must involve collective processes both in the deuteron and d-electron plasmas as, otherwise, the Coulomb barriers would be quite prohibitive.”

That is precisely what we have done with the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs.
Although their 1994 paper is not terribly specific in many ways, being mostly concerned with broad-brush prescriptions for what they consider to be correct theories of “cold fusion,” many parts of their thought processes were eerily prescient.

Peering into the future, they were able to discern faint, hazy outlines of viable theories that might ultimately emerge from the swirling fog encompassing the research at the time. Looking back, it is easy to see that the field was composed of a bewildering sea of disparate, sometimes conflicting and often inconclusive experimental data. One example is the excess heat observed in light water versus heavy water systems. Another example is the plethora of various nuclear transmutation products reported in light and heavy hydrogen experiments versus the selective reporting of only helium He-4 production in deuterated systems.

Of course, as readers of your work in the Wiley and Elsevier print encyclopedias already know, the history of LENRs did not begin with Pons and Fleischmann’s much maligned press conference at the University of Utah in 1989; the research goes back to at least 1905.

As I have shown, we have uncovered extensive evidence in published, peer-reviewed literature that, in certain types of experiments, scientific knowledge has been episodically observed, dutifully reported, periodically rediscovered, and then unintentionally — or perhaps intentionally — buried for a century. Some examples of this are work with high-current electric discharges in gases; anomalous amounts of nitrogen production in the manufacture of coke; and other heretofore unexplained LENR-related phenomena.

I can only wonder what knowledge may have been lost to science along the way.

Lewis Larsen
Lattice Energy LLC

*************************************************************************
[1] Fleischmann, Martin, Pons, Stanley, Preparata, Giuliano, “Possible Theories of Cold Fusion,” Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 107A, Issue 1, p. 143-156 (Jan. 1994)

[Note for new readers: This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]

One of the most conventional high-energy physics institutions in the world, CERN, the European Centre for Nuclear Research, is interested in one of the most unconventional disciplines in science, low-energy nuclear reactions.

An interesting sequence of events has just occurred:

Dec. 7, 2011: Lewis Larsen publishes a paper on Slideshare discussing a possible relationship between low-energy nuclear reactions and unexplained observations with the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

Jan. 12, 2012: Francesco Celani gives a slide presentation at the World Sustainable Energy Conference 2012. Slides 2-13 are actually from David Nagel, who has presented these same slides for many years. Slides 14 and 15 are from NASA. Slides 16-22, however, a table of excess heat claims, appear to be an original compilation by Celani.

In his conclusion, Celani cites two theoretical models which rely on the “weak force;” Widom-Larsen and Takahashi.

Jan. 16, 2012: Celani reports in an e-mail to LENR researchers that he has received an invitation to speak at CERN about LENR.

“The key point is that CERN changed from [being] fully negative to [having] deep interest,” Celani wrote.

[Note for new readers: This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]

[UPDATE: The list is composed of ONLY the major recognized theories in the field of LENR research that have been consistently presented in the related LENR conferences or published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.]

I continue to receive mixed responses about the media attention I give to the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs. Regardless, my confidence in that theory has not changed.

However, I have decided that it is both useful as well as fair to provide an opportunity to help present other LENR theories on the New Energy Times Web site.

Therefore, I have built portal pages for the following theories:

Bazhutov-Vereshkov Theory
Chubb (Scott) Theory
Chubb ( Talbot) Theory
De Ninno Theory
Fisher Theory
Gareev Theory
Hagelstein Theory
Hora-Miley Theory
Kim-Zubarev Theory
Kirkinskii-Novikov Theory
Kozima Theory
Li Theory
Sinha-Meulenberg Theory
Szpak Theory
Takahashi Theory

Readers will find a link to these pages on the left-hand menu of the New Energy Times Web site under “LENR Theory Index.”

If I am missing a theory in this index, please let me know. Note that I have omitted Randall Mills’ theory because he prefers not to associate his work with LENR.

I have notified (where possible) the authors of these theories. I have sent them e-mails and requested them to contribute with additional information so I may better inform the public about their theories.

But anyone can help out. Through the New Energy Times News Service, I have sent this message to nearly every LENR researcher in the world, to all the members of the CMNS e-mail list, as well as thousands of LENR fans worldwide.

I ask readers to have a look at each of the sections for each of theories. If you can help provide factual and useful information about any of these theories, please send it to me. Please note, the purpose of these pages are to help promote the work of each theorist. The pages are not to be used to criticize the work of competing theorists.

Thank you for your help.

Steven B. Krivit
Senior Editor, New Energy Times

[Note for new readers: This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]

John O’Mara Bockris, regarded as one of the world’s pre-eminent electrochemists, recently advised me that he overcame objections by referees to a paper he submitted for publication by citing the Widom-Larsen Theory.

Bockris sent me a letter on Jan. 2 and discussed his progress.

“I have been absolutely intrigued by [Lewis] Larsen and have changed my mind about his stuff,” Bockris wrote. “I used one of his equations in a paper which was held up by referees and was able to defeat them by Larsen’s equation!”

Bockris has also been following my distinction between low-energy nuclear reactions and “cold fusion.”

“If I understand clearly what you say, you agree that some of the work that has been going on may involve nuclear reactions,” Bockris wrote, “but that it’s not fusion. Is that what you said? If it is, then I agree with it. Most of the condensed matter nuclear reactions do not involve fusion.”

[Note for new readers: This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]

Several years ago, NASA scientists identified one theory that appears to explain low-energy nuclear reactions. Since then, in their public communications, they have given credit to the inventor of the theory. Not anymore.

After filing a patent application in 2011 based on this theory, one of these scientists, in his public communications, stopped giving credit to the inventor.

On March 9, 2006, Allan Widom, a condensed matter physicist with Northeastern University, and Lewis Larsen, chief executive officer of Lattice Energy LLC, published a landmark theory that offers a promising explanation for low-energy nuclear reactions.

Two scientists at NASA’s Langley Research Center, Dennis Bushnell and Joseph Zawodny, saw the promise of the Widom-Larsen ultra-low-momentum neutron theory of LENRs.

For several years, Bushnell and Zawodny spoke favorably and enthusiastically about the Widom-Larsen theory as well as LENR in general.

Thursday, Larsen told New Energy Times that he spoke with both NASA employees by phone to help them learn about LENR and his theory.

“I spent six months tutoring Zawodny so he had the basics of the theory,” Larsen said.

Larsen told New Energy Times that Bushnell and Zawodny also led him to believe that NASA might provide some funding for his company.

“In a series of telephone calls I had during the spring and summer of 2008 with Zawodny and Bushnell, they dangled a carrot ­- the possibly of significant funding from NASA,” Larsen said. “I told them that I was wiling to teach them the basic physics but I would not transfer Lattice’s proprietary knowledge about how to use nanotechnology to improve the reliability of LENRs without having a contract.

“I told them, ‘Under contract, I will show you how to make transmutations every time, but I will not show you how to reliably make large amounts of heat.’

“In January 2009, after an internal NASA meeting, Bushnell and Zawodny informed Lattice that they would not be funding us but they would welcome any free advice we wanted to offer NASA. We declined.”

On Aug. 12, 2009, Zawodny gave a slide presentation on LENRs called “An Energetics Revolution for ALL of NASA’s Missions and a Solution to Climate Change and the Economic Meltdown.”

Several of the slides are devoted to the Widom-Larsen theory. Slide No. 2 shows that Zawodny knew that only one theory in the field of LENRs did not attempt to make charged particles overcome the Coulomb barrier at room temperature. Slide No. 3, as shown below, indicates that Zawodny also knew that the Widom-Larsen theory was the first theory of LENRs that did not require “new physics.”

I, too, have learned a lot from Larsen. Last year, as a result, Zawodny and I combined our efforts and contributed a chapter on the Widom-Larsen theory to the Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia.

On Feb. 22, 2011, Larsen was granted U.S. patent 7,893,414 for an invention based on his theory, which, at its core, describes a novel method for producing heavy electrons.

A month later, on March 24, Zawodny filed his non-provisional U.S. patent application 20110255645 for a “Method for Producing Heavy Electrons.”

Naturally, Zawodny had to cite the Larsen patent as well as the Widom-Larsen theory.

“The energy associated with ‘low energy nuclear reactions’ (LENR) has been linked to the production of heavy electrons,” the Zawodny application states. “Briefly, this theory put forth by Widom and Larsen states that the initiation of LENR activity is due to the coupling of ‘surface plasmon polaritons’ (SPPs) to a proton or deuteron resonance in the lattice of a metal hydride.”

On Sept. 22, 2011, Zawodny gave a slide presentation about LENR at NASA’s Glenn Research Center. His second slide asks, “Do we have a theory?” He mentions a theory by inventor Randall Mills and dismisses it. He mentions a theory by Purdue professor Yeong Kim and dismisses it, too. He then presents several slides that speak very encouragingly about the Widom-Larsen theory and why it “may be correct.”

The Zawodny patent application published on Oct. 20, 2011.

Four days later, on Oct. 24, 2011, Aviation Week published an article about LENR written by Zawodny.

“Theories to explain the phenomenon have emerged,” Zawodny wrote, “but the majority have relied on flawed or new physics.

Not only did he fail to mention the Widom-Larsen theory, but he wrote that “a proven theory for the physics of LENR is required before the engineering of power systems can continue.”

On Jan. 12, 2012, NASA released a short promotional video titled “Method for Enhancement of Surface Plasmon Polaritons to Initiate and Sustain LENR.” At the end of the video, the narrator restates the title as “NASA’s Method for Enhancement of Surface Plasmon Polaritons to Initiate and Sustain LENR in Metal Hydride Systems.”

Zawodny is prominently featured. He mentions nothing of the Widom-Larsen theory or Larsen’s concept of how surface plasmon polaritons are a primary key to initiate LENRs.

I sent Zawodny an e-mail on Thursday and asked for an explanation of the omission.

“The intended audience is not interested in that level of detail,” Zawodny wrote. “The text I am intending to send you, after approval, clarifies things, hopefully.”

Readers may learn more about the Widom-Larsen theory from their paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Pramana.

[Article updated Jan. 13 to include title restated by narrator at end of NASA video, and to include the quotes from Larsen about funding from NASA.]

[Update and Correction: After reading this article, Zawodny sent me an e-mail with only one correction: "You should be informed that a provisional patent [application] was filed almost exactly one year earlier.  At the time the non-provisional was filed, Larsen’s gamma shielding patent had to be cited as a relevant related patent.”

For additional clarification, Larsen filed his international patent application on Sept. 8, 2006. That published on March 15, 2007.

Zawodny filed his a provisional U.S. patent application in March 2010. He filed his non-provisional patent application on March 24, 2011. We have corrected the article to reflect this fact. ]

[Note for new readers: This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]

I received a question from a New Energy Times reader a few days ago:

“What exactly is causing the energy to be produced in the LENR reaction according to the Widom-Larsen theory? Is it energy produced due to the transmutation of elements, or something else entirely?”

According to the Widom-Larsen theory, the reaction chain includes this four-step process:

I describe this process in my article “Widom-Larsen Theory Simplified” as well as in the chapter I co-wrote with Joseph Zawodny of NASA for the Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia.

Let’s first answer a question the reader didn’t ask: “How much energy is required to initiate the reactions and where does it come from?”

In experiments with hydrogen, there is an energy cost of 0.78 MeV to create the neutron that initiates the reaction chain and each subsequent neutron that is used. This takes place in step 1 of the Widom-Larsen theory. In the case of deuterium, there is a cost of 0.39 MeV to initiate the reaction chain and each subsequent neutron that is used.

Each of steps 2 – 4 in the Widom-Larsen theory release energy. According to Larsen, these may include neutron capture processes (that create gamma rays which are converted into infra-red heat energy by nearby heavy electrons,)  alpha decays, beta decays, beta-delayed neutron emissions and beta-delayed alpha decays among others. Different values of energy release are associated with each process and each set of particles involved in the reaction network.

These are all well-known, conventional nuclear physics processes and the values can be found in textbooks and online tables such as the Brookhaven National Laboratory Q-Value Calculator.

These reactions take place in a complex network of possible reaction pathways. In the diagram below, taken from Larsen’s Sept. 3, 2009 slides, one of the many reactions shows a carbon-12 atom capturing a neutron and going to carbon-13. This releases 5.0 MeV of energy through the neutron capture process.

But nobody has even seen carbon-14 in LENR so it is very unlikely that the reaction chain stops in the neighborhood of carbon-13 or carbon-14.

If the reaction chain goes through seven steps, it can end up as helium-4, which has been seen many times.

The final step in this chain shows nitrogen-17 undergoing a beta-delayed alpha decay to helium-4. This releases 2.3 MeV of energy in that single step. This particular chain, from start-to-finish, C-12 to He-4, via N-17, is only one of many possible pathways. In this network path, the total energy release is 39.9 MeV, which accounts for the cost of the neutrons.

Readers who are ready for more may wish to look at Larsen’s Sept. 3, 2009 slides pages 11-12 and June 25, 2009 slides, pages 45, 46, 50 and 62-64.

A good resource to learn about the Widom-Larsen theory is my WL Portal page.

[Note for new readers: This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]

A two-minute non-technical video clip on LENRs has been uploaded to the NASA technology gateway website featuring Joseph Zawodny.

References:
Widom-Larsen Theory Simplified

Lattice Energy LLC United States Patent: 7,893,414

Zawodny, Joseph. M. and Krivit, S.B., “Widom-Larsen Theory: Possible Explanation of LENR,” Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia, Steven B. Krivit, Editor-in-Chief, Jay H. Lehr, Series Editor, John Wiley & Sons, 978-0-470-89439-2 (Aug. 2011)

NASA United States Patent Application 20110255645

[Note for new readers: We performed extensive reporting and videotaped documentation on the Rossi Energy Catalyzer topic in 2011. Please see http://rossiportal.com/  This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]

Contributed by S.D. Simonson

Even the school – Kensington University, California (USA) – where “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi obtained his chemical engineering degree was shut down for fraud.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_University

**********************
The school was founded in 1976 by Alfred Calabro in Glendale, California, as a “no fat, no bull” correspondence school. The university was housed entirely in a Glendale office that also contained Calabro’s law practice. Kensington awarded bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees in a wide range of fields. California regulators said that Kensington handed out degrees “which may have little, if any, academic value” and perpetrated a “fraud on the public”. State investigators found that the school awarded doctoral degrees after as little as four months’ work which consisted of reading magazine articles. Following a protracted legal battle, Kensington University was ordered shut down by the California courts in 1996, and the school shifted its operations to Oahu, Hawaii, where it was shut down by court order in Hawaii in 2003.
**********************

I notice Kim Il-Sung from North Korea received his degree from there also.

While I would like to believe Rossi’s claims about LENR and his E-Cat’s heat/energy gains, sometimes the air of fraud follows one around like the cloud of dust surrounding Pig Pen in the Charlie Brown cartoon.

References from Wikipedia:

[Note for new readers: We performed extensive reporting and videotaped documentation on the Rossi Energy Catalyzer topic in 2011. Please see http://rossiportal.com/  This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]

Readers of New Energy Times since this summer know that we published an extensive report on Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer on July 30, 2011. (Find it in our index here.) However, we are still getting many new subscribers who have not seen this older report.

A key aspect of this report was the examination of Rossi’s demonstration I filmed in Bologna on June 14, 2011. In a nutshell, the engineering studies in our July 30, 2011 report show that the amount and rate of steam that was coming out of Rossi’s device didn’t match his claim of about 5,000 Watts. Not by a long shot.

Instead, the steam coming out of Rossi’s device looked exactly like what you would expect to see coming out of a 1,000 Watt electric tea kettle. And in fact, that’s about how much electricity was going into Rossi’s device.

The best explanation that Rossi’s fans have used to explain this inconsistency is that Rossi intentionally deceived viewers – but just this one time.

Click here to see video sequence

Source: The New York Times
Annotations: New Energy Times

“We recommend to the American warship that passed through the Strait of Hormuz and went to Gulf of Oman not to return to the Persian Gulf,” said Maj. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, the commander in chief of the [Iranian] army, as reported by Iran’s official news agency, IRNA. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will not repeat its warning.”

General Salehi did not say what action Iran would take if the carrier were to re-enter the Persian Gulf.

A spokesman for the Defense Department, Cmdr. Bill Speaks, declined to discuss future movements of the carrier, the John C. Stennis. He said that “the deployment of U.S. military assets in the Persian Gulf region will continue as it has for decades.”

The United States dismissed Iran’s threats to close the strait. “The U.S. Navy operates under international maritime conventions to maintain a constant state of high vigilance in order to ensure the continued safe flow of [oil] maritime traffic in waterways critical to global [energy] commerce,” Commander Speaks said.

[Note for new readers: This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]

By “Greg from Tennessee”

It seems as though the tide is turning towards the concepts of weak interactions and collective effects and away from the three miracles that have always been assumed by the cold fusioneers (to steal Lewis Larsen’s phrase).

It looks like at least some LENR researchers may be trying to catch one of the last waves before the tide leaves them out at sea. If they can gain acceptance by marrying their old terminology with Larsen’s theories, after years of suppressing his theories for fear of the destruction of theirs, then maybe they can stay relevant.

What is so sad is that many of these folks did some good work in the past showing impressive evidence of excess heat but could never explain it. Many of these people are brilliant! If more of them had simply been willing to stay open minded in 2005, when a serious explanation had been given, especially since they had not found sound explanations themselves, the discipline would have been far ahead of where it is today. In such a scenario, they would have all been in the mix moving forward. I don’t understand the decision by many of them to stay in denial so long when nothing long-term could possibly have been gained from it. It’s not too late for these folks, but they’re going to have to renounce the concept of fusion and start looking at other possibilities.

You can only omit, suppress, and deceive for so long when your ideas, theories, and philosophies have no possible way of moving the science forward. Eventually, the scientific community, sponsors, and funding agencies will see that you’ve made no progress. The resource-holders will start looking at fresh concepts to explain phenomena. I think that’s where we’re headed.

[Note for new readers: This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]

Source: Randyhekman20112.com

Energy: America’s Next ‘Space Race’

Yesterday, I published “Hagelstein Knew: It’s Not Fusion.” Today, a low-energy nuclear researcher responded. We had the following e-mail exchange which has been lightly edited:

LENR Researcher: I understand your insistence to say it is not fusion. You assert that deuterium-to-helium-type fusion is the only kind of fusion there can be. However, I personally believe LENR is fusion because a nucleus is going to a higher mass. That is fusion.

It does not matter if it is a neutron adding to a nucleus or a deuteron adding to a nucleus or by what pathway you get there. If a nucleus goes to a higher mass, it is fusion. Going to a higher mass is fusion, going to smaller mass is fission.

I define fusion as “a nuclear reaction in which a nucleus undergoes a change to a more massive nuclei with the simultaneous release of energy.” It is not pathway dependent.

I also don’t think that MeVs of energy represent “low energy.” I also think that anything below a million K is cold in nuclear terms. kT<< nuclear binding energy.

Krivit: You have been researching LENR for most of the past 22 years. You are also a professor of physics and chemistry. Nevertheless, in physics, “neutron addition” is called “neutron capture,” not “nuclear fusion.”

The core of the historical argument and controversy of “cold fusion” is the hypothesis that by some miracle, deuterons are somehow overcoming the Coulomb barrier at room temperature. In physics, beta decays and inverse beta decays rely on the weak force. Fusion processes rely on the strong force.

Now that a potentially viable theory has finally arrived, albeit not a fusion theory, you, McKubre, and other researchers in the field want to change physics terminology. I do not think for a moment that anybody outside the cold fusion ghetto (Charles Beaudette’s term) will take such attempts seriously. I think such attempts will only bring more disrespect to the field. I see your attempt to redefine terminology of nuclear mechanisms after the game has been played similar to MIT’s 1989 experimental effort to change their baseline after they ran their experiment and – oops! – measured a few milliWatts of excess heat.

Have you thought your strategy through carefully and independently? And if so, are your ideas about nuclear terminology truly representative of your approach to science and specifically to LENR research?

Wouldn’t it be better just to say, “Maybe we were wrong about the fusion idea, but we nailed it with our measurements of excess heat, helium, tritium, transmutations, alphas, neutrons, etc.”?

Would it help if I reminded you what the co-discoverer of “cold fusion,” Martin Fleischmann, said to me last year?

“Well, fusion has a special meaning in the scientific literature – hot fusion – and perhaps it was a mistake to call this process fusion.” Fleischmann said. “It should have been called a nuclear effect, you see.”

You ask why I am so insistent on the correct use of terminology. I think it is the honest thing to do. Apparently, so did Martin. I also think that the field will not achieve real progress until people see what nature is showing, rather than what they want to see. More importantly, the field will not achieve the recognition it deserves until its proponents can prove to observers that they are trustworthy.

LENR Researcher: (Excerpt) You have not yet offered your definition of fusion. Offer your general definition of fusion.

Krivit: It less important how I define fusion. It is more important what you and the rest of the LENR community have put forward for 22 years as fusion: D+D -> 4He.

And now a new model arrives: e + p -> n + v;  n + x -> y and you want to call the process whereby a neutron is created, and/or the process where a neutron is captured by a nearby nucleus “fusion.” If this is where you wish to go, you have every right to proceed as you wish. But I will not follow you.

I answered your question about definitions a year and a half ago: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35908neutroncapture.shtml

[Round 2]

LENR Researcher: Why do you think these things are “Low Energy” and not fusion at low (kT<< Mev’s) temperatures?

Krivit: I have explained this many times, starting with my 2008 ACS presentation (Presentation – Audio) and other New Energy Times publications. This material has been available for three and a half years. Do you have a specific question about what I wrote and said in my presentation?

LENR Researcher: LENR is not an accurate term from what I see in the lab.  The energy must be many times any possible chemical event and likely in the Mev’s.

Krivit: We do not disagree on the levels of produced energy. And judging by the papers and discussions at the NASA Glenn workshop, or the 2004 DoE Review of LENR, or the 2006 DTRA Workshop, I do not think the word “low” discourages people from appreciating the potential of LENR, so this does not seem to be an argument that is worth nitpicking about.

LENR Researcher: The point is that I do not think that your approach to condemn the use of the term “fusion” based on an assumed theoretical model is useful to the field. Especially if that model admits it is a merger of several items into one.  I feel it would be much better to allow people to use the terms they are comfortable with. Let people use dozens of terms if they like.  Let history decide what term sticks after another 20 years or so.   It is better to view terms and other people as how their statements can be true instead of trying to force others to use your terms and then assume others wrong. Nature does not care what we call these events.

Krivit: You seem very confused.

First, it is not just one “assumed theoretical model.” There is a larger picture that I see; many people have speculated weak-interactions. Widom-Larsen just seems the best one so far.

Second, please remember that our conversation started when you approached me about terminology, not the other way around.

Third, this is what I wrote: “If this is where you wish to go, you have every right to proceed as you wish. But I will not follow you.”

Restated more clearly: If you wish to continue calling it cold fusion, go right ahead.

LENR Researcher: I am afraid that you are slowly alienating yourself from many within the field (use what ever terms you wish for it).  You seem to be picking sides for terms and theoretical viewpoints instead of remaining “journalistically neutral”.   I hope that you professional journalistic style will eventually return you to a neutral position before your audience evaporates. My un-asked for advise is to ease off the attacks on individuals and semantics. —- Just saying that as a “friend”.

Krivit: Thank you for your “friendly” concern about me alienating myself from people who believe in cold fusion. Fortunately I have had some time to think about this because I have heard this exact comment for several years now. In fact, I began hearing it in 2008 from people who believe in cold fusion when I first began publishing news about the Widom-Larsen not-fusion theory. But you are correct. Some of my audience who are either unable or unwilling to allow their perspective to shift and change as the knowledge in the field shifts and changes will, in fact, walk away. That doesn’t worry me. Not a bit.

Let me speak about your comment about “journalistically neutral.” Remember where this conversation started. I wrote an article called “Hagelstein Knew: It’s Not Fusion.” This was very straightforward reporting. Then you began to ask me questions about my personal perspective. Of course, I responded with my personal opinions.

Now, the idea of “journalistically neutral” does not apply in all situations. I work hard to differentiate when I am reporting versus when I am being asked my opinion, either by someone like you, or by representatives of the federal government, or by business research firms, or by publishers to provide an expert (you may disagree) opinion. However, I am still willing to consider your comment. Can you please tell me in which article, in your opinion, I was not “journalistically neutral?” Was it the Hagelstein article or my response to you?

Telephone Interview Conducted June 3, 2009

Excerpt:

Martin Fleischmann: It seemed to me that calling it fusion drew attention to the type of process which it could be, you see. It seemed reasonable to call it that at that time.

Steven B. Krivit: I suppose there was nothing else, to your awareness, from which to categorize it?

…

MF: Yes, it seems reasonable to have called it that, but perhaps one shouldn’t have called it that.

SK: Yeah, that seems understandable. I was wondering whether you had a chance to catch wind of the ideas in the last few years about neutron-catalyzed reactions?

MF: Yes, it must be. You know, the neutron is not very strongly bound in deuterium so maybe there is some substance to those thoughts.

Since 1989, MIT professor Peter Hagelstein has been struggling to find a viable mechanism to explain LENR experiments. At last count, he said he had tried more than 150 models. Hagelstein has also been very critical of a weak interactions-based theory that was introduced in 2005 called the Widom-Larsen theory. For Lewis Larsen, the originator of the theory, their published theory represents his first and only model to explain LENRs.

Many theorists have attempted to explain “cold fusion” with complex mathematics and imaginary “new physics.” Larsen did not begin with mathematics; those aspects were added later. He began with an insight; he recognized a similarity between transmutation product spectra he saw in LENRs and spectra he had seen while taking courses in astrophysics (elemental abundances versus atomic mass.) Larsen can explain his concept without mathematics and in comparatively simple language.

According to Larsen, an ultra-low momentum neutron is created in LENRs and this is the key to the reactions. Because the neutron has ultra-low momentum, it does not travel outside the experiment; though spallation neutrons may. According to Larsen, his U.S. patent explains how gamma rays are suppressed and are not seen outside the experiment.

(Go to Widom-Larsen Theory Portal for more information.)

Photo credit: John F. Cook, Cold Fusion Magazine

In 1993, Hagelstein also recognized that weak interactions were the key to LENRs as New Energy Times wrote on July 30, 2010. Hagelstein, however, didn’t solve the riddle. New Energy Times has obtained a 1994 article written by Hagelstein that reveals his thought process.

A few things that Hagelstein knew:
- It could not be fusion.
- There was no way to get deuterons to fuse at room temperature.
- The only possible solution was to use a neutral particle like a neutron.

Something Hagelstein did not know:
- How a neutron might be created.

Here are some excerpts from Hagelstein’s article:
**********************************
My initial consideration led nowhere. There simply was no place to start. Fusion was conjectured, yet I concluded it could not be fusion. (I know that some of my theorist colleagues disagree on this point.) There was no way to get deuterons -the nuclei of deuterium – together. Even if deuterons somehow were able to get together, large numbers of neutrons and quantities of tritium would be generated along with heat, and this was not observed.

A reasonable response would have been to cross off fusion from the list and then proceed to whatever was next. The only problem was that there did not appear to be any “next.”

…

As was clear initially, there were two basic difficulties: (1) how to overcome the Coulomb barrier, and (2) how to couple the energy to the lattice. I was not able to find any satisfactory solution to the first problem, and ultimately concluded that the reactions, whatever they might be, could not be fusion reactions.

The only way to get around the problem of the Coulomb barrier, assuming optimistically that any way actually existed, is to work with reactions involving a charge-neutral system.

A number of prominent theorists had speculated that there might exist a heavy negatively-charged particle that could carry a proton or deuteron, effectively producing a neutral “particle” that could enter a positively charged nucleus. I did not believe that such particle existed on earth – preferentially in heavy water/palladium electrolysis experiments. Consequently, the only serious possibility seemed to be some kind of novel exotic reactions involving a neutron that would be transferred at a distance.

If a reaction is to involve a neutron transfer with a nucleus, it immediately becomes problematic as to where the neutron would come from. There seem to be no obvious source of real neutrons associated with the experiments; even if there were, real neutrons would lead to all kinds of nuclear emissions and activation of materials, effects not consistent with the experimental reports.
**********************************

New Energy Times has three versions of the Amoco report. Steven B. Krivit obtained short and long versions of the report in 2004 from one of the authors, Melvin Eisner. Afterward, Jed Rothwell, the cybrarian of LENR-CANR.org, published an edited version of the report.

Short version from Eisner
Long version from Eisner
Rothwell version

[Note for new readers: We performed extensive reporting and videotaped documentation on the Rossi Energy Catalyzer topic in 2011. Please see http://rossiportal.com/  This blog is part of the New Energy Times Web site and News Service. Readers can find out much more about LENR from our home page.]

I asked Ugo Bardi, a professor of chemistry at the University of Florence, how he thought “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi had achieved such widespread attention on the Internet in spite of his lack of scientific evidence or proof of commercial success.

“There is a phenomenon of ‘tribalization’ that is now taking over the whole internet,” Bardi wrote. “People tend to form virtual tribes in which they repeat to each other always the same thing, until it becomes self-evident that the ‘thing’ is true. People who deny the ‘thing’ are enemies, the tribes assert, because of their internal evilness or because they are paid by the dark forces of Sauron.”

A New Energy Times reader sent me an extraordinary list of 81 websites and blogs, almost all created this year, that are promoting inventor Andrea Rossi and his “Energy Catalyzer.”
http://andrearossiecat.com
http://buy-ecat.com
http://buyecat.com
http://coldfire-lenr.blogspot.com/
http://coldfusion3.com
http://coldfusionecat.com
http://coldfusionetf.com
http://coldfusioninvestment.net
http://coldfusionnow.org/
http://coldfusionsecrets.com/
http://cold-fusion.us/
http://ecatbuilder.com
http://ecatbuilder.com/
http://e-cat.ca
http://ecatcertifications.com
http://ECat.com
http://ecatexport.com/
http://ecatfactory.com
http://ecatforum.com
http://ecatfusion.com
http://ecathome.com
http://ecatinfo.com
http://ecatinvestment.com
http://ecatmotor.com
http://ecat-news.com
http://ecatnews.com
http://ecatnews.net
http://ecat.nl
http://ecatnow.com
http://e-catonline.com
http://ecatpatent.com
http://ecatplants.com
http://ecatreport.com
http://ecatreviews.com
http://ecatrossi.com
http://e-catsite.com
http://e-catworld.com
http://ecat.ws
http://energikatalysatorn.se/
http://energycatalyzer3.com
http://energycatalyzer.blogspot.com
http://energycatalyzerguide.com
http://energycatalyzernews.com
http://facebook.com/energycatalyzer.buzz
http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com
http://fusiondevices.com/
http://fusion-froide.com/
http://hydrofusion.com/
http://leonardo-ecat.com
http://nickelenergy.wordpress.com/
http://nickelpower.org
http://rossicoldfusion.com
http://rossiecat.com
http://rossiecatstory.com
http://rossienergycatalyzers.com
http://rossifocardifusion.com
http://pesn.com/
http://twitter.com/energycatalyzer
http://www.bookcoldfusion.com/e-cat/3197
http://www.buildecat.com/
http://www.buycoldfusion.net/ni-hi-hydrogen-palladium/3484
http://www.coldfusionenergy.net/lenr-cold-fusion/3579
http://www.coldfusiongame.com/invest-in-cold-fusion-energy/3446
http://www.coldfusionhydrogen.com/
http://www.coldfusioninvestment.net/
http://www.coldfusionitaly.net/cold-fusion-rossi/3358
http://www.cold-fusion.mobi/
http://www.coldfusionmovie.net/
http://www.coldfusionreactor.org/buy-cold-fusion-energy/3454
http://www.coldfusionvideo.net/
http://www.cold-fusion.ws/e-cat/3572
http://www.ecatplanet.net/
http://www.hnifusion.com/
http://www.hyperion-ecat.com/
http://www.hyperion-ecat.com/e-cat/3224
http://www.nickelhydrogencoldfusion.com/lenr-theory/3425
http://www.nihcoldfusion.com/lenr-investment/3426
http://www.rossifocardicoldfusion.com/
http://www.scoop.it/t/rossi-s-ecat/
http://www.stockcoldfusion.com/lenr-nuclear/3431
http://www.videocoldfusion.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat/3387

In 2006, Hideo Kozima was the first “cold fusion” theorist to cite Widom-Larsen:

“Here, we would like to cite a paper by Widom and Larsen (Widom and Larsen 2006) in which a new mechanism of neutron production in transition-metal hydrides/deuterides is proposed. They pointed out the possibility of neutron production (along with neutrinos) from an electron and a proton due to the weak interaction. This mechanism supplies neutrons in addition to the absorption of background neutron by solids and production of neutrons by breeding reactions implicitly assumed in the TNCF model.” [ISBN 0-080-45110-1, p. 95]

A few days ago, the Japan CF Research Society released the extended abstracts from its 12th conference. Professor Akito Takahashi, retired from Osaka University, explained his latest ideas about low-energy nuclear reaction mechanisms, which include weak as well as strong interactions.

Takahashi is the second “cold fusion” theorist to cite the Widom-Larsen theory.

To whom it may concern,

In 2010, I conducted an investigation of the EPRI-funded SRI International experiment “M4,” performed by Michael McKubre and staff, and I published my findings. I also provided them to the federal intelligence community.

My conclusions are that, starting in 2000, McKubre began retroactively to manipulate and fabricate data that was associated with M4. He did so without presenting scientific support and without disclosing his changes to the public or to his sponsor, the Electric Power Research Institute. New Energy Times provided McKubre with multiple opportunities to respond to the investigation. Many questions remain unanswered. Please see the summary slides, questions and, where known, answers from McKubre below.

Our collection of our reports, research and records on this matter at this Web address:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/McKubreM4/McKubre-Experiment-M4.shtml

I have also asked SRI International as well as EPRI if they are willing to perform an independent investigation and release their conclusions, as well.

Steven Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times
(310) 470-8189

Sources: M. Srinivsan and DNA India

Noted nuclear scientist P K Iyengar, who played a key role in India’s first atomic test in 1974 and pioneered experiments in cold fusion died here this afternoon after a brief illness. He was 80.

News story continues here.

LENRs Versus “Cold Fusion” and the Search for Scientific ‘Truth’
A Philosophical Comment for 2012
by Lewis G. Larsen, Lattice Energy LLC

While the realm of religious faith may not be able to explain all the myriad objective facts comprising the inner workings of Nature uncovered in the gradual progression of secular science over time, the world’s great religions do have some very important things to say about the conduct of human beings engaged in the pursuit of science and the ultimate goals of such work. Two such references are exemplary:

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” John 8:32 in the American King James Version of the Holy Bible.

Article Continues Here

Dear Mr. Krivit,

Please forgive me if I use some incorrect scientific terminology or if I link terms to the wrong concepts. I have no background in physics or chemistry. I am reading from your site and other sites to get a basic understanding of the field as quickly as possible, so that I may have a better understanding in the two different philosophies regarding LENR research.

I have become fascinated with you and the information on your Web site, particularly with regard to your claims about the traditional, cold fusion researchers and their actions to stifle any interest regarding weak interactions and transmutations.

From what I’ve seen from the cold fusion researchers’ side of the argument, they ignore weak interactions and transmutations as much as possible. They seem to ignore your belief that cold fusion has been disproved. They seem to include weak interactions as one of the new, unproven theories that have only a few followers. They only defend their research when directly attacked by your writings, but they don’t counterattack to specifically show how the Widom-Larsen theory is wrong.

From your side, it seems completely different. From everything I’ve seen and read so far, it seems like your Web site and your writings depict a huge fracture in theory (weak interactions versus cold fusion). You depict deliberate and specific attempts to stifle information about weak interactions: behind closed-door meetings to discredit Widom and Larsen; delaying visas for Russian scientists; deliberately altering their own results; etc.

Letter Continues in News Section

On Dec. 4, we published several sets of Slides From Sept. 22 NASA LENR Innovation Forum Workshop.

Today, New Energy Times reader W.H found one more set on the NASA Glenn Web site from Gustave C. Fralick and colleagues.

On Dec. 12, we uploaded a fresh copy of the Nelson slides. He provided us with a copy that included source attributions and that also corrected the spelling of Piantelli’s name.

Here is our full index of the NASA slides:
Zawodny Slides
Nelson Slides
Bushnell Slides
Fralick Slides

The NASA Glenn Web site provides a brief summary of its LENR research:

“Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently show evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading of deuterium into and out of bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR.”

Shell’s Interest Indicates Major Shift for LENR

Royal Dutch Shell, plc, one of the largest energy companies in the world, is interested in exploring low-energy nuclear reaction research as a possible game-changer in the energy business.

Two Shell scientists, Anitha Sarkar and Gilles Buchs, with the backing of the Shell GameChanger program, are looking for opportunities to work actively with LENR experts, according to a brief introduction the researchers prepared.

Edward Beardsworth, a venture capitalist at Jane Capital Partners in San Francisco, introduced the researchers to the field in a message to the CMNS e-mail list today.

“At my request, they prepared the attached biographical sketches and description of what they bring to the group. They are both located at the company’s research and development offices in the Netherlands,” Beardsworth wrote. “I believe their fresh and enthusiastic approach will lead to good contributions to the field.”

According to its Web site, Shell GameChanger “helps move ideas to reality by sponsoring entrepreneurs to develop their ideas into a product that can be introduced to the marketplace.”

“Specifically,” the site says, “we look for innovative ideas that address a demand or significant problem in the energy industry and have the potential to change the game.”

The Shell researchers, according to the document provided by Beardsworth, offer the following to the field:

 - Broad expertise in wide variety of energy conversion systems
 - Access to significant group of Shell surface science and catalysis experts
 - Access to key related disciplines: thermodynamics, physics, electrochemistry, computational chemistry,   heat exchange, etc.
 - Shell GameChanger program, (www.shell.com/gamechanger) rapidly funds initial proof of concept testing for revolutionary innovation
 - Significant expertise and track record of development and scaling-up and from lab-scale to commercial unit of a wide range of complex energy technologies.

This is not the first time Shell has looked into LENR research. In 1995, Shell sponsored LENR research at the French laboratory Laboratoire des Sciences Nucléaires at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (CNAM). This research showed high-quality LENR work, and the research paper provided the expected level of professionalism in a scientific communication.

The researchers found a small ratio of excess heat compared to the input electrical power in both light- and heavy-hydrogen experiments. However, the experiments demonstrated a sustained period of steady excess-heat production. The hydrogen experiment produced 16 megajoules during a 39-day run, with a mean excess-heat production of 4.7 Watts from a 150 Watt electrical input.

Consistent with the extensive body of LENR research, the CNAM researchers found no significant levels of dangerous radiation from neutrons, X-rays or gamma rays. The researchers failed to find nuclear signatures consistent with the amount of excess energy produced. They did not, however, check for isotopic shifts or transmutations, and they did not use solid-state nuclear track detectors to look for alphas or bursts of spallation neutrons.

The current Shell initiative follows an inquiry from the United States intelligence community into LENR. Both news items are powerful indicators that 2012 is the year that LENR will move forward into serious technology research.

Physicist and LENR researcher Talbot Chubb died today. He was 88. Cause of death was related to a heart condition and other general health issues, according to one of his daughters, Carroll Chubb.

Chubb worked for 31 years at the Naval Research Laboratory, then later at University Space Research Associates, Bendix Field Engineering Corporation and Oakton International Corp.

Chubb also worked on the Manhattan project during World War II at the Tennessee Eastman Co. facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and had more than 80 refereed publications and 25 patents to his credit.

Chubb’s enthusiasm for cold fusion research, as evident in an e-mail he wrote in 2005, was as unmistakable as his smile.

“What excitement when Fleischmann and Pons announced the discovery of nuclear heat release during heavy water electrolysis onto a Pd cathode!,” Chubb wrote. “The fact that Fleischmann and Pons were respected hands-on electrochemists kept me from summarily dismissing their claims. When nephew Scott Chubb pointed out that many-body electron systems were modeled without an explicit Coulomb barrier, I had to take the cold fusion possibility seriously.

“When I learned that the 2 electrons in the ground-state helium atom had electron-electron wave function overlap, I became hooked. I bought into Scott’s idea that under some conditions deuterons in a metal can configure themselves into a wave-like geometry, like electrons in a metal. I have  been exploring the Ion Band State picture ever since.”

Talbot Chubb – Photo by D. Nagel

On Thursday, I published the transcript of an interview I gave to MITRE Corp. on behalf of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity. I had been invited as a subject-matter expert on low-energy nuclear reaction research.

Today, SRI electrochemist Michael McKubre posted a comment on the CMNS e-mail list about my interview. McKubre also commented on my 2010 investigation of his experiment “M4.” Readers can learn more about that investigation in my article “When Nuclear Is Not Enough: A Tangled Tale of Two Experiments,” and the accompanying 101-page slide presentation.)

McKubre’s Comment:

Thanks Ed, Dennis and particularly Abd for weighing in on this.  I was contacted by Avra Michelson very early in November and did speak to her and her associate.  They planned to have the interviews completed by mid December so Steve was one of, if not the last.  I would guess that they had talked to enough “primary sources” (hands on scientists) by then to place his comments in the “opinion” category in their analysis.  If she did not speak to any or all of you three then the methodology (a recommendation chain) is likely unsound.

I doubt that any on this list needs to be told this but neither I nor anyone else at SRI “fabricated” data associated with M4 (or anything else that I am aware of).  We had occasion to reanalyze those data, found an error in the EPRI report (a private document at that point), and communicated that promptly to the only person who was aware or cared (in the mid-to-late `90′s) – the EPRI Program Manager.  Later published reports in the open literature are (I believe) correct, and I have had no reason to doubt or refine them in the past dozen years.

People sometimes question the value a “traditional” scientific education but this case highlights one of its clear benefits.  Poor Steve simply does not know what he does not know.  His sustained semantic confusion about fusion (despite Ed’s many corrections) and failure to understand the issues surrounding helium mass balance, have spoiled his view, to which he is entitled, but for which he is not credentialed.  I don’t want to pick a fight with Steve (“Never pick a fight with someone who buys his ink by the barrel”  and share fully the view stated by Lew: “We all need to end the ‘war’ and behave more like scientists instead of polemicists”.  I also don’t want to irritate or demean the many “civilian scientists” on this list who have contributed much, in many cases brilliantly.  But to reinforce the point made by Dennis one must learn, primarily, from the primary sources.  Interpretation of data without access to the lab notebooks and detailed knowledge of the procedures actually employed, is worse than fruitless, as this case demonstrates.

-Mike

[New Energy Times has directly addressed each issue in McKubre's second paragraph above, in our letter "To Whom It May Concern, Dec. 21, 2011, as well as in our letters to SRI International and to EPRI. We show that each of McKubre's statements are inconsistent with the facts.]

On Dec. 3, the Columbia (MO) Tribune published a story about Rob Duncan, vice chancellor of research at the University of Missouri, and his efforts to pitch cold fusion to the federal government.

Today, the Tribune published a letter I submitted in response to that story.

Open Column: ‘Professor Rossi’ can’t back up his claims
Columbia Daily Tribune
Friday, December 9, 2011

I would like to comment on the Dec. 3 story “MU research chief wants ‘cold fusion’ puzzle solved.” I agree with Professor Robert Duncan on the importance of the scientific method and, furthermore, scientific protocol. Duncan’s suggestion that Andrea Rossi has “empirical results,” however, concerns me. Nobody has seen or tested any Rossi device outside of Rossi’s garage, let alone done so independently. No visiting scientists have been allowed to properly measure and inspect Rossi’s device.

I interviewed Andrea Rossi in Bologna, Italy, on June 15. I had to explain to him the term “control experiment.” Rossi is fluent in English. Once he understood, he said he used “many metals” for a control. Rossi and his colleague Sergio Focardi said they had submitted their paper to multiple scientific journals but that all had rejected the paper unfairly. In fact, they did not submit their paper to any journal, only to arXiv. Rossi published the paper on his blog instead. On camera, Rossi demonstrated to me how his machine worked, a video of which can be found online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E.

By all accounts, the visual evidence was grossly inconsistent with his claim. The list goes on. “Professor Rossi,” as Duncan calls him, has no affiliation with any university. He has a degree in philosophy and a degree in chemical engineering from what CBS calls a “diploma mill.” Anybody involved in the LENR field who condones or, worse, promotes Rossi’s unscientific behavior and claim does himself and the LENR field a tremendous disservice.

On Nov. 21, I received a phone call from Avra Michelson, an analyst with MITRE Corp. Michelson explained that MITRE Corp. is a federally funded research and development center that is sanctioned by Congress to work in the public interest exclusively with government. It helps government with some of its hardest systems engineering problems and with its work with the private sector.

Michelson told me that she was doing background research on LENR on behalf of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity. She invited me to be interviewed as a subject-matter expert on LENR.

“We are asking questions about the field to eminent scientists and experts like yourself who have been active participants in the field,” Michelson said. “IARPA’s goal is to fund and help accelerate high-risk kinds of research for the intelligence community.”

The telephone interview took place on Dec. 1. Michelson’s colleague Chrissy Vu also participated in the call.

Click here to continue.