
The cold fusion horizon - jseliger
https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-scientists-dismiss-the-possibility-of-cold-fusion
======
mizzao
I understand the argument about the sociological reputation trap, but a little
more reading about Rossi's research turns up some very fishy evidence:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer)

In particular, the copper supposedly generated by the fusion of hydrogen and
nickel has an isotopic composition very similar to that of natural copper,
rather than what one would expect from byproducts of nuclear reactions. As a
result, it's much more likely that copper comes from a conventional source
rather than actual nuclear fusion.

It also doesn't help that Rossi has been convicted of fraud for purportedly
inventing dubious devices in the past. In particular, he "created" a system
for turning toxic waste into oil, but this turned out to be just dumping the
waste into the environment.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_\(entrepreneur\))

I'm all for avoiding groupthink in scientific research, but this might not be
the right story on which to base that argument.

~~~
ChuckMcM
And that is, what I think is Rossi's biggest problem. Very showy, very
secretive.

The explanation I've heard is that he has something which works (for some
definition of works) but doesn't know _how_ it works or why. And because of
that he is walking around afraid that if too many details get out about how it
works then someone smarter then him will jump in and patent/publish the _why_
and then be forever known as the person who "invented" this technology.

I don't know if that is true, but listening to Rossi talk and what he has
written it seems like it could be true.

But elephant in the room is that if you can produce a MW of usable energy out
of this thing then why not run it 24/7 and generate your quarter million a
year in revenue (pretty much any market will buy baseload power at $30/MWhr.
Use your first quarter million to build another one in year two, then use the
half million from year two to build two more for year 3 and use the million
dollars you get in year 3 to build four more, and the two million dollars from
year 3 to build 8 more. Etc. Easy to sell shares in a company that is doubling
in revenue each year and will continue to do so until it reaches 25% of
baseload power (1TW or about a billion a year in revenue).

Either way, the way in which Rossi's e-cat story is playing out it screams
hoax not breakthrough. That has nothing to do with the "reputation" of cold
fusion and everything to do with the difference between seeing breakthroughs
get promoted and hoaxes get promoted.

~~~
marshray
Another possible explanation is:

He is really not very good at measuring energy input and heat output. He built
something and confused himself into thinking it was producing more energy than
it consumes. He took some money from investors to develop the technology. He
spent much of the research money, eventually to realize that his device does
not, in fact, produce energy. His investors now want their money back and he
is concerned they are going to break his legs.

So at this point he has no choice but to maintain his original claims for as
long as possible. Appearing now to be bumbling and incompetent may be
preferable to appearing accurate and precise with measurements.

~~~
ars
> He is really not very good at measuring energy input and heat output.

Calorimetry is actually extremely hard to do right. VERY hard. I stopped
following this field a few years ago, but back then EVERY single positive
result was due to faulty calorimetry.

~~~
htns
Lubos Motl called out the specifics of the Energy Catalyzer hoax some years
ago. I think it had to do with neglecting hydrostatic pressure within the
water pipes, which allowed steam to get in.

------
ScottBurson
Great article. I'm not going to defend Rossi, but what happened in 1989 was a
travesty. Yes, Pons and Fleischmann were premature in their annnouncement. But
they didn't deserve to be made pariahs, and there were others whose careers
were destroyed for so much as publicly entertaining the possibility that cold
fusion might be made to work. Edward Teller, on the other hand, was old enough
not to care:

 _Around 1992, McKubre says, he was summoned for an audience with legendary
physicist Edward Teller. "He asked probing questions, in better depth, I
think, than anyone else on the planet. You could see what a giant intellect he
must have been in his time. I was subjected to this interrogation for four
hours. At the end of it Teller said that he did not think that cold fusion was
a reality, but if it were, he could account for it with a very small change in
the laws of physics as he understood them, and it would prove to be an example
of nuclear catalysis at an interface. I still don't understand what he meant
by that, but I'm quite willing to believe that it's correct."_ [0]

It really shows how political and, frankly, _corrupt_ Big Science is. As this
article points out, failure to replicate proves nothing. The charitable
reading is that Pons and Fleischmann didn't even know for sure what properties
of the alloy they were using were critical to the reaction, though they had
some ideas. That possibility should have been considered.

[0]
[http://www.wired.com/1998/11/coldfusion/](http://www.wired.com/1998/11/coldfusion/)

~~~
Retric
Early announcements would have been one thing, but all evidence points to
these guys committing flat out fraud.

~~~
PeCaN
Evidence?

As far as I can tell the only 'fraudulent' thing they did was jump to the
conclusion of "WE MADE ENERGY WITH COLD FUSION" when they probably should've
announced their result with "looks like we have some unexplained heat". They
most probably were, however, understandably rather excited.

~~~
Retric
Producing even a little heat with fusion produces a lot of nasty radiation. As
in kill everyone in the unsheilded room within a few seconds.

Based on the amount of unexplained heat they produced fusion would have been
extremely radioactive, however they did not treat there setup as an extreme
radiation hazard. Which suggest they did not think there would be any fusion.

PS: Here are some pictures for a device expected to produce less than 1W of
fusion.
[http://www.cmgww.com/historic/farnsworth/inventions/fusion/f...](http://www.cmgww.com/historic/farnsworth/inventions/fusion/fusionhot.html)
Note the deep and cheap to produce pit.

~~~
ScottBurson
> Producing even a little heat with fusion produces a lot of nasty radiation.
> As in kill everyone in the unsheilded room within a few seconds.

This is greatly exaggerated. The amount of excess heat they claimed to observe
was really quite small, and D-D fusion produces a relatively weak neutron flux
[0]. I'm not saying some shielding wouldn't have been a good idea, but instant
death? No.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Deuterium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Deuterium)

~~~
Retric
100Mev+ X-Ray / Gamma radiation is not fun. There is some play in the numbers
based on type of fusion, but ~1w is on the order of 10^12th reactions per
second and flat out lethal. Sure, if a device is weak out 1 millionth of that
then it's not a big deal, but nobody cares about 0.000001 watts / second.

~~~
ScottBurson
You didn't even click the link. Neutrons from D-D fusion are at 2.45 MeV.

~~~
Retric
Yea, I was off by a factor of 10.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_dose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_dose)
1W of 2.5Mev neutrons ~= 10W worth of Gamma Rays in terms of equivalent dose.
([http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-
engineering/22-01-introdu...](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-
engineering/22-01-introduction-to-ionizing-radiation-fall-2006/lecture-
notes/absorbed_dose.pdf)) There are several 14.1+Mev fusion products see
chart:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion)
(Which is probably where I was thinking 100Mev), but it’s already normalized
so we are talking 10W equivalent.

Granted that 10W dose equivalent is not focused so a person standing next to
it might get 8% of that which is .8W, or ~0.01W/kg equivalent (for a 80kg
person) which just happens to be ~1 Rads per second. (1 rad = 0.01 Gy = 0.01
J/kg. 250 to 500 rads is the LD/50.

So, Standing next to an unshielded 1W neutron source has a 50/50 shot giving
you a lethal dose within ~4 to 9 minutes.

PS: 2.5Mev Neutron radiation @ 1J per kg is ~10 Gy which is ~LD100 and
probably where I was thinking 1W = death.

(Please double check my math.)

------
dkbrk
I think there's definitely a cultural problem where the outcome of an
experiment is associated with the reputation of the scientist who performed
it. We see this in the bias to publish only positive results - as though if an
experiment did not make findings of significance it is a failing of the
scientist who performed it - and we see this in the reluctance of many
scientists to investigate that which would be very surprising if found to be
true.

The NASA research into the EmDrive is an excellent example of this. The
discovery of a method of propulsion which does not consume onboard mass yet
achieves energy efficiencies greater than that of a photon rocket would be
extremely surprising, which makes it all the more important that apparent
effects such as these are investigated. The correct response on seeing an
unexpected experimental result is not to ignore it or to assume the experiment
is wrong (although that should be treated with a high probability), but to
report it and to systematically investigate the discrepancy until either the
unexpected result is confirmed with a degree of evidence commensurate with its
unexpectedness or the error is discovered. Extreme skepticism can be equally
as bad as extreme gullibility, and it is extremely discourteous to imply or to
assume the existence of fraud, or to attack the character of the researcher
unless there is overwhelming evidence supporting such an aspersion. Even if it
might by probabilistically justified to promote the possibility of fraud on
the part of the scientist to the most likely explanation for an unexpected
result, this has negative externalities on entire scientific fields and forces
researchers to "stake their reputations" on publishing surprising results,
which is just the sort of perverse situation we should strive to avoid.

~~~
snowwrestler
The NASA EmDrive research is what I thought of, as well.

I found the vehemence and personal nature of the attacks on those results to
be surprising, disappointing, and beyond the bounds of typical rational
skepticism. Sure, it will probably turn out to be nothing, but NASA is not
trying scam us. Not every investigation of weird results is a scam.

~~~
powera
If this is such a credible or important result, why are none of the articles
about it ever from NASA or quoting NASA?

~~~
marshray
I thought it was 99% an independent effort and a NASA lab just let them use
their vacuum balance test chamber.

------
RogtamBar
Rossi is very fishy, and he has no clue why his 'invention' works. Scratch
that.

However, these two Swedish professors Lidgren and Lundin were involved in
testing Rossi's claims a few years back. Lundin is a plasma physicist at the
Swedish institute for Space Physics, and has a long publication record.
([https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22rickard+lundin%22&hl...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22rickard+lundin%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5))

Now they've published a paper:

"Nuclear Spallation and Neutron Capture Induced by Ponderomotive Wave Forcing"

Here:
[http://www.irf.se/Publications/?dbfile=IRF%20Scientific%20Re...](http://www.irf.se/Publications/?dbfile=IRF%20Scientific%20Reports&dbsec=Administration)

They're saying essentially that they can use heat and EM field to resonance to
make solid-state materials expel a neutron. They call this "thermal neutron
spallation".

Which is a pretty bold statement of an entirely novel concept.

They've said they're setting up an experiment to demonstrate this novel form
of neutron spallation.

~~~
rdtsc
> They've said they're setting up an experiment to demonstrate this novel form
> of neutron spallation.

They'd need to have some results besides Rossi and then others would need to
replicate it, and then replicate it again by yet another team for it to start
being believable and taken seriously.

Not a physicist, just a regular computer programmer, but reading that paper I
see some pretty serious claims -- matter transmutting to different elements
(isotope formation), neutron emission and capture, at 2000'C environment,
there are claims about having 1-10 kWh generators running for years with a few
grams of fuel only.

------
sdlm
Completely different field- but I think Charles Darwin's way of "crippling
potential criticism of one’s ideas by taking charge of all conceivable
counterarguments" is a great example of how important rhetoric is, especially
in such 'biased' areas. Just imagine what would have happened to his idea of
Evolution if he had not been such a rhetoric genius.

[https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/11/11/adam-gopnik-
angels-...](https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/11/11/adam-gopnik-angels-and-
ages-darwin/) "[...] the other great feature of Darwin’s prose, and the
organization of his great book, is the welcome he provides for the opposed
idea. This is, or ought to be, a standard practice, but few people have
practiced it with his sincerity — and, at times, his guile. The habit of
“sympathetic summary,” what philosophers now call the “principle of charity,”
is essential to all the sciences."

------
jacquesm
This article is funny. It tries to do an end-run around any criticism of the
subject matter by constructing an elaborate piece of work to establish that if
you don't agree with the basic premise of low energy nuclear reactions there
must be something pathologically wrong with you.

And you are not only suffering from a defect, no you are doubly wrong, because
having LENR would be such a great thing for the world.

For me it is simple. If someone shows up with a working LENR device (or even
any device, who cares how it works as long as it is safe) that really outputs
considerable power and they are willing to sell me that power at a rate that
is lower than what my electricity company charges then I'll be more than happy
to sign up. Until then they, their investors and promoters should do what they
can not to raise expectations beyond those that they can readily prove, no
matter what the benefit to mankind and no matter how many scientists got
unfairly (if so) railroaded for fudging their numbers and defrauding
investors.

Cold fusion, zero point energy, unicorns.

~~~
rdtsc
Yap. This is almost certainly a scam. As long as there are rich people, there
will be scam artists selling them "cold fusion", "infinite energy machines",
it is fascinating to watch these happen.

This also creates an interesting market, just like scam artists look for marks
that other scammers have deceived, there is probably someone taking notes
which investors are buying into the story. Those people would be good targets
for the future. "Hey psst, I got a this scientist friend working for NASA that
is building a flying car running on weak nuclear force energy, he just need a
bit of funding".

~~~
ZenoArrow
> ""cold fusion", "infinite energy machines""

I don't think it's fair to lump those two together. I think we all accept the
energy potential in fusion is there, and it also seems possible that the most
efficient way to tap that energy is one we have yet to fully understand. The
most efficient method could be found under the 'cold fusion' umbrella, and
even if these methods turn out to be a different process than fusion, we still
may end up learning something new anyway. For example, sonoluminescence has
been linked to fusion before, but even if the processes involved end up being
different to fusion, it's still an interesting process:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJolILUbdNw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJolILUbdNw)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence)

The point is, it doesn't serve us to dismiss fields of scientific research
that have some chance of bringing us a new understanding of the science
involved, even if we end up scrambling around in the dark for a long time.

~~~
grogers
Sonofusion was also fraudulent:
[http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091123/full/news.2009.1103.h...](http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091123/full/news.2009.1103.html)

~~~
ZenoArrow
You missed the point. I said even if the process turns out to be something
other than fusion, interesting phenomena like sonoluminescence are still
worthy of study anyway.

Same with this E-Cat stuff, clearly there's something we haven't formally
explained yet going on, and the experiment has been shown to be reproducible,
sounds worthy of study to me, even if it turns out to be a different process
than fusion, and even if it turns out it can be explained without changing our
scientific models.

------
simonh
He says that failing to recreate Fleischmann and Pons' findings isn't enough
reason to doubt their claims because recreating results is tricky, and implies
that therefore we have no actual reason to doubt that they achieved cold
fusion. But we do.

Not only did their apparatus, according to their own measurements, not produce
any of the radiation that would be an unavoidable byproduct of fusion, but the
core also didn't contain any fusion byproducts. As a result I think it's
perfectly reasonable to conclude that they could not possibly, in any if their
experiments, have achieved Fusion. If their measurements of excess heat are
true, whatever it's source was, it wasn't fusion.

~~~
snowwrestler
I don't think the point of this piece is to claim Fleischmann and Pons
actually succeeded. I think the point is that there is a difference between
the failure of a particular experiment, and proving that all experiments in
cold fusion will fail.

Fleischmann and Pons was certainly not the only science experiment to produce
a false positive in 1989, but it was a huge, public failure, in a research
area that is filled with cranks (easy energy). I agree with the article's
author that it probably tarnished an area of research that, while far-fetched,
should not be automatically dismissed as impossible.

~~~
simonh
I don't think many people are saying it's impossible. I'm not. But given the
history I think its reasonable, before treating any claims in this area as
credible, to either want a clear theoretical basis for a given experiment or
unambiguous details on how to repeat a compelling result. In the absence of
either or preferably both of those, all we are dealing with is uncorroborated
and unverifiable claims which we have no reason to take seriously.

------
rdlecler1
The article seems to be lost on a large number of commenters who are asserting
(or almost asserting) that this is a scam because (1) Rossi seems to have a
dubious history (I'm only going by the comments, not my own investigation) and
(2) Rossi is secretive (3) Rossi is not a notable scientist from a top-tier
University (4) Rossi comes across as overconfident.

This is what the article is pointing out. The author is saying that in this
case the cost of a false positive is so incredibly low and the benefit of a
positive result is so high that we should be more willing to lower our guard a
little more. These kind of quick reflex objections based on red flags will be
useful 99.99% of the time, but major scientific advances only occur 0.01% of
the time and so maybe humanity would benefit more if we loosened up a bit on
our skepticism, especially surrounding the person or the field and focus more
on the science.

~~~
jacquesm
The quick reflex is an optimization, if it is true the proof will surface on
its own strength, until then you can safely ignore it. After all, unless he's
_actually_ discovered something you're wasting your time.

The burden of proof is rightly on the one making outrageous claims, there is
no burden of sufferance because the positive benefits are so high. They'll be
there regardless of whether one believes, after all, it works or it does not.

See also: ubeam, theranos, moller and so on.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "The quick reflex is an optimization"

That's not what's happening here. The optimal response in terms of saving time
is to stay neutral until stronger proof arrives. What's happening instead is
people being hostile to research being conducted in a way they disagree with,
or by people they disagree with. That negativity takes energy.

------
rdtsc
Based on watching videos and reading about other stuff he's done:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_%28entrepreneur%2...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_%28entrepreneur%29)

I vote for this being a scam. A very clever scam but another scam.

There is in fact whole cottage industry centered around energy and battery
technology. The audience for this is not us or other scientists but investors.
It is about demos, videos, secrets, lots of tubes and wires, flickering
lights, acting like they just discovered free energy and will revolutionize
the world of physics. The goal is to make people with money believe you.

In general, just because people have money doesn't mean they also know science
and thus many are targets of scam artists. But the "art" part in scam art is
to also pick an area that is not too confusing (brain surgery, genetics,
something too theoretical, etc) or too hard but something seemingly simple --
"we make energy", "we have a new battery", "a device that produces more energy
than it consumes" etc.

------
jon_richards
I dislike the whole opening about "superluminal neutrinos". That announcement
was asking for others to identify the issue with the testing rig, as they
figured there was one but could not find it themselves. As far as I know, the
only ones to claim the existence of superluminal neutrinos were the media.

I agree that there is an unacceptable stigma against certain fields of
research (look at how long it is taking to test the EM drive, which has been
reproduced how many times already?), but I don't see a problem in not
believing someone already convicted of fraud when they claim to have
discovered something but won't let you see how it works.

Until findings are reproduced, I give this the same level of credibility I
give this guy:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJtsC5sVZA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJtsC5sVZA)

------
powera
"There are credible reports that a 1MW version of his device, producing many
times the energy that it consumes, has been on trial in an industrial plant in
North Carolina for months, with good results so far." \- _This_. This is why
scientists are skeptical. "Is there a plant" isn't a hard scientific question.
We don't need or care about "credible reports". It's there or it isn't. And if
you refuse to admit one way or another, you're almost certainly lying about
the whole damn thing.

------
Animats
This cold fusion guy supposedly has a 1MW plant in test at an industrial site.
That should be verifiable.

Nobody seems to know if Theranos' technology actually works, even the
investors. With a multi-billion valuation, that's a big problem.

Nobody seems to be sure whether the D-Wave quantum computer really does
anything "quantum", even though they've shipped products.

How did we get to the point where we can't even verify claims for supposedly
working technologies?

~~~
Snowdax
When "fake it until you make it" is a widely spread mantra, people get good at
the "fake it" part.

~~~
Animats
I just saw the movie "The Big Short", about the guys who saw that the mortgage
collapse was coming and figured out how to short it. They had to talk a bank
into creating a new kind of derivative so they could short mortgages. There's
an opportunity here. Someone needs to come up with a way to short startups.
There are a lot of "unicorns" worth shorting.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Haven't watched that yet. I love the idea, though. Silicon Valley creates so
many BS valuations that there should be some negative incentive to it or at
least a steady stream of people getting rich off calling their BS. Might lead
to some changes in valuations as a side effect.

------
mrb
I really wish people would stop discarding the idea of nickel-hydrogen cold
fusion just because Rossi has a bad reputation. So I am happy when I see
cautiously positive articles like this one.

Firstly, those who research this domain are fully aware that cold fusion is
impossible according to theoretical physics. But experiments trump theory. And
as I have written about it 4 years ago
([http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=61](http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=61)) the fact is
there _are_ experiments conducted by multiple other groups of researchers that
demonstrate anomalous heat being produced by nickel-hydrogen cells. Not only
this anomalous heat cannot be explained by current physics but there are clues
that nuclear fusion is taking place (some nickel atoms being transformed into
copper atoms). Unfortunately the controversy about this entire area of
research is amplified by the fact that many of these experiments are very hard
to reproduce.

Research has made some progress over the last 4 years, and my opinion has not
changed: whatever mechanism is taking place, it seems to be able to unleash
fantastic amounts of energy from very little material. We just need more
researchers to look at into it and understand it.

~~~
powera
On the other hand, there aren't billions of dollars to be made in a cottage
industry from cranks claiming that fusion-like setups cause things to actually
get cooler or that some form of reverse-fusion occurs. So if you have enough
people looking hard enough and only publishing the best results, you'll
definitely get "experiments" which show "anomalous heat". And they will
_definitely_ be "hard to reproduce" since they're just noise.

------
yc1010
That reminds me, whatever happened to that perpetual energy machines from
those "Steorn" lads from Dublin?

edit: never mind I see they are still around somehow (and managed to waste
millions in process)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn)
[http://orbo.com/](http://orbo.com/)

\------------

"Welcome to the online shop for Orbo technology, home of our "never die"
battery technology-based products.

We're excited to move towards bringing the first of our products to market in
2016 and revolutionising the world of consumer electronics.

The battery is dead."

\------------

Oo

~~~
tommoor
Ah yes.. If I'd invented a source of perpetual energy, this is exactly how I'd
commercialize it too:
[http://orbo.com/products/ophone](http://orbo.com/products/ophone)

------
dgreisen
The key sentence:

We are like a thirsty town, desperate for a new water supply.

Our human inclination is to talk ourselves into believing the mirage. Add in
the inevitable snake oil salesmen... As scientists, the more we desperately,
wish for a thing to be true, the more we must demand of the evidence.

------
poelzi
Database with cold fusion papers (very comprehensive):

[http://lenr-canr.org/index/Summary/Summary.php](http://lenr-
canr.org/index/Summary/Summary.php)

The BSM-SG model describes LENR fusion very well, most of the reported
experiments implement one ore more of the theoretical mechanisms for
successful fusion.

[http://www.amazon.com/Structural-Physics-Nuclear-Fusion-
BSM-...](http://www.amazon.com/Structural-Physics-Nuclear-Fusion-BSM-
SG/dp/1482620030/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8)

But does not make so much sense without understanding the main book.

------
mrfusion
I recently was excited to find out that cold fusion is actually real. Check it
out: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-
catalyzed_fusion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion)

No one ever seems to mention it but it seems like it could be a promising
avenue someday.

------
steven2012
The same thing goes for those that would dare to dispute string theory or
human-caused global warming. Trying to publish any papers that defy either of
those canons will likely end your career.

~~~
MCRed
In some circumstances yes, but I think actually that most of the papers out
there disprove AGW, it's just that nobody reads them. I've read many papers
given to me by AGW proponents that they claim support AGW, and in every case
they don't and in most they actually support the opposite conclusion. (as do
most of the scientists who have signed petitions.)

As a political movement, global warming doesn't need science, politicians and
advocates just declare it "settled" and thus feel they don't have to defend
their claims.

------
joe_the_user
One big argument against free energy at low temperatures is that if it was
possible then the natural world would have already discovered it.

The other argument is that if someone has a free energy device, they actually
shouldn't need to convince _anyone_ , they could just hook it to the grid, get
paid for the power, use the money to build more devices, repeat until they had
a serious power company. And then they start bargaining.

~~~
chc4
I'm not sure that argument against it holds up. For all we know some Deuterium
and Palladium are hanging out in the cosmos undergoing fusion, and we would
have no idea about it. There are real room temperature fusion methods[0] that
can also happen in nature, but even if that method was break-even it doesn't
mean Mother Nature would exploit it due to the difficulty of starting the
reaction.

Getting paid for power and getting enough seed money to build more generators
does involve convincing people, as well, and is pretty much what Rossi has
been doing. He even started his own energy company, iirc, and has been selling
self-contained "generators" to people.

0: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-
catalyzed_fusion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion)

~~~
rdtsc
> Getting paid for power and getting enough seed money to build more
> generators does involve convincing people,

He is clearly not trying to convince anyone serious by disallowing scientists
to measure using their own equipment and on their own terms and conditions.
Energy production is not hard to measure and people have been metering
electrical enenergy for many decades now.

So far is obstructing and preventing such scrutiny. He is trying to convince
only rich people to give him money. If you look at that as his goal, he is
doing all the right steps in that direction.

> He even started his own energy company, iirc, and has been selling self-
> contained "generators" to people.

How many people have bought and used his device to generate power?

------
gweinberg
The article claims Rossi was given a US patent. A patent is supposed to allow
a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention,
so in principle it should be easy to test his claims.

Of course, if it works the tester will have to pay royalties.

------
scotty79
Rossi contraption is just that (or not, as long as it's not scientifically
open no-one should care).

What I'm curious about is this:

[http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-
scientis...](http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-
claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/)

Guys basically claim they found a way to create free neutrons at lowest
possible energy cost, published a paper and even ran some initial experiments.

------
anupshinde
LENR, if possible, will have a much bigger impact on global economy - may even
transform the way economies works. Its not just clean energy, but think about
the impacts of artificial transmutation.

Also if LENR is possible, it also means that some or all of the biological
life possesses this capacity and it could be an undiscovered fundamental
natural occurrence.

BUT - all of this sounds too good to be true :( Fundamental discoveries have
pretty much slowed down and it is very natural to be skeptical about these.

------
limaoscarjuliet
After some study of reactionless drive, I'm somewhat ready to accept that
there is a lot to be learned about physics: [http://www.gizmag.com/cannae-
reactionless-drive-space-propul...](http://www.gizmag.com/cannae-reactionless-
drive-space-propulsion/33210/)

I'm certainly open minded about LENR, although the "free" energy attract a lot
of shady characters.

------
djsumdog
A good documentary to watch is Fire from Water.

There has been a lot of work into LENR and a lot of it is positive. Toyota
dedicated a two years research division to it.

The trouble is it's not consistent, and when excess heart is recorded, we're
not sure why. I'm sure this is of those fields that needs a "eureka" moment
where some group figures out what might be simple missing pieces.

~~~
extrapickles
If cold fusion research was tested with more accuracy, it would be a more
respectable thing to research (or at least not laughed out of the room).

All of the tests on cold fusion/LENR devices never seem to use appropriate
measurement tools for the measured range, much less the gold standard methods
for counting energy in/out, leading to enough error you could hide a truck.

No more calculating energy from thermal camera pictures from 1 side of the
device without checking periodically if the heat output is uniform. Similarly,
they like to use 3-phase input power when a standard wall-plug power would do.
Measuring 3 Phase power in these cases is like trying to measure the weight of
a person using a truck scale. Also you can do more shenanigans with 3 phase
that the meter wouldn't pick up, which due to the history of scams in this
field is even more important that the power being fed to the device is proved
to not have anything funny going on.

I'd like for cold fusion to be true, but in order for them to be taken
seriously, they need to test the devices with much more rigor.

------
intrasight
I am confused as to the author's justification for seeming to give credence to
a thoroughly discredited person.

It would have been a better article if he had just stuck with "the science
says it is possible just not probable" instead of discussing Rossi. And no
mention of Pistol Shrimp - I am disappointed.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Why Pistol Shrimp? Other than them being cool as heck if the claims about them
are true.

~~~
nkurz
I can't find any high-quality single page that gives the history, but here's a
low-quality one that explains the connection:
[http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/200...](http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/2007/06/running_hot_and.html)

Basically, pistol shrimp "attacks" produce a small burst of light
(sonoluminesence). There was a theory that this was actually a form of fusion
(sonofusion). There were some studies done that demonstrated this
(Taleyarkhan, 2002). But there were lots of irregularities about the study
(Naranjo, 2006), and like cold fusion it's been (mostly?) discredited.

~~~
nickpsecurity
I like her writing style. Fun read. Never heard of sonofusion or thought about
using sonoluminesence for it. Sounds like some potential albeit with careful
measurements & checks. Something that odd & difficult to measure is likely to
trip people up anyway. Just the nature of the thing.

------
tomconroy
Could someone explain how Rossi's device is different from recent fusion
reactor experiments?

[http://www.ipp.mpg.de/3984226/12_15](http://www.ipp.mpg.de/3984226/12_15)

------
Shivetya
Reading this reminds me of the controversy with the Cannae Drive

------
youngButEager
Rossi is a known liar. He has been jailed for it.

It has been far too long for independent confirmation of the claim. After all,
it's in his _best interest_ to be proven correct.

He is a fraud. The fact that he's taken outside investment means he's a
_convincing_ fraud. And that is how he puts food on his table.

Not from commercializing his 'findings.'

He'd be a wealthy man indeed, years ago, had this turned out to be true.

It's thus in his best interest to line up/support independent verification --
for years now -- and yet no independent verification exists.

Move on, it's bunk.

------
brianmcconnell
Cold Fusion is _real_. It powered my website back in the 1990s. Where have all
of you been since then?

------
sebringj
At first I was like please die, cold fusion from Adobe. Then I was like oh.
Nevermind.

~~~
orthecreedence
Yes, hopefully Adobe Coldfusion's "horizon" will be an event horizon.

~~~
gnarbarian
I seem to be trapped in an orbit quite near the even horizon where time has
slowed to a crawl. (5 years into a CF project)

------
mschuster91
hold short, wasn't it proven months ago that the E-Cat "worked" by using the
ground return for powering a second heating coil?

~~~
mannykannot
As far as I know, it hasn't been proven, as the requisite access has not been
granted. Of course, Rossi could easily have disproved it as soon as the issue
was raised, if it were not so.

Edit: The posited arrangement is diagrammed and described here, along with
other reasons to doubt:

[http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-
cat...](http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-
and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/)

------
dkural
This finally puts aeon.co on my 'never read' list. What a poorly fact-checked
piece of writing.

------
sandebert
Considering this intersects Rossi, the E-Cat reactor and Sweden, it might be
interesting to know that Rossi and his claimed invention is quite
controversial in Swedish media.

Searching for his name on Sveriges Radio (Swedish Public Radio):
[http://sverigesradio.se/sida/sok.aspx?q=andrea+rossi](http://sverigesradio.se/sida/sok.aspx?q=andrea+rossi)

...gives these results (with my very short translated snippets):

    
    
      ---------------

Blind faith in cold fusion (2014-05-27)

 _" Andrea Rossi claims his machine works using cold fusion, yet scientists
cannot look into the machine or get all test data. Even though this,
established Swedish physicists have written positive reports about Rossis
machine."_

[http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/375904?programid=412](http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/375904?programid=412)

    
    
      ---------------

Scientists helped suspected con-man to sell miracle machine (2014-05-27)

 _" I realize he's using us."_

[http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=406&arti...](http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=406&artikel=5872983)

    
    
      ---------------

Negative results were never published (2014-05-28)

 _" Andrea Rossi's alleged miracle machine, the E-Cat reactor, has been tested
at Uppsala University. But no results of the test or the circumstances
surrounding it have been published. Even at the [Swedish] Natural History
Museum has an important study been made to suggest that Rossi's allegations
are not true. Again, nothing have been published."_

[http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/375957?programid=41](http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/375957?programid=41)

    
    
      ---------------
    

Andrea Rossi paid air plane tickets for Swedish scientists to Italy
(2014-05-30)

 _" The visit resulted in a very positive report"_

[http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=406&arti...](http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=406&artikel=5876160)

    
    
      ---------------

Swedish scientists on paid trip for E-Cat reactor (2014-06-17)

 _" A believer ignores all arguments. Despite all the warning bells a half-
dozen researchers at Uppsala University and the Royal Institute of Technology
continue to cooperate with Andrea Rossi to try to find out about his alleged
power device email catalyst functions."_

[http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/396095?programid=412](http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/396095?programid=412)

    
    
      ---------------
    

All of the links above contains the actual radio episodes, in Swedish only
though. There are more articles about him in Swedish media, these are just
from our NPR. And please understand that my translated snippets are just meant
to give a small taste of the content of the radio episode, you obviously need
to listen to it go get the full content. :)

------
mannykannot
It seems that philosophers are not immune to scam artists. I am surprised by
this particular example, but only a little bit.

~~~
baq
have you even read the article?

~~~
mannykannot
Yes, and I have also read other sources, especially with regard to Rossi.

e.g:

[http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.6364.pdf](http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.6364.pdf)

[http://www.sott.net/article/241427-E-Cat-Cold-Fusion-
Machine...](http://www.sott.net/article/241427-E-Cat-Cold-Fusion-Machine-
Claims-of-Fraud-Heating-Up)

~~~
msandford
Then I hope you see the irony in your comment, and why the first reply was a
little incredulous.

I'm not defending Rossi, BTW. The odds are very, very, very good that it's
another scam. But it's not _impossible_ that he's on to something and that's
exactly what the article's author points to, along with lamenting how tragic
it would be if cold fusion turned out to be real and we wasted 20 years not
pursuing it because of the reputation trap.

~~~
mannykannot
I am wondering if we read the same article. The author uncritically cites
already-discredited studies in favor of the E-Cat without noting the doubt
that surrounds them, and only mentions fraud as being so improbable as to
effectively dismiss it. He is apparently literally salivating over his
expectation that he will be proved right.

FWIW, I know cold fusion is not definitively ruled out by physics, I would be
thrilled if it were realized, I think it is a valid area of research and I
always thought that Pons and Fleischmann were treated far too harshly, but
ignoring strong indications of fraud is only going to make that case harder to
make. I hope you can see that these are not mutually contradictory opinions.

~~~
paganel
I know almost nothing about cold fusion and theoretical physics in general,
but as a guy who has read some Popper and Hume I'll chime in with an obviously
subjective opinion, and say that after reading all the HN comments and parts
of the article the first thought that came to my mind was this: "extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence".

Interestingly enough that exact quote is present in TFA, but in a manner that
makes it debatable:

> This is not to deny that there is truth in the principle popularised by Carl
> Sagan, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We should
> certainly be very cautious about such surprising claims, unless and until we
> amass a great deal of evidence. But this is not a good reason for ignoring
> such evidence in the first place, or refusing to contemplate the possibility
> that it might exist

Paragraphs like this one remind me of a work-colleague of mine, who I try to
convince from time to time during our cigarette breaks that aliens have not
visited our planet and that they're not just "about to arrive", impending
asteroid apocalypse be damned. At which point she almost always responds to me
like this: "paganel, yours are valid opinions, but we cannot refuse to
contemplate the possibility that one day they may arrive". This also reminds
me of how early Christians actually believed that the second arrival of Christ
was just around the corner. Whatever this guy writes about and whatever he
believes in, it is not about science.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "Whatever this guy writes about and whatever he believes in, it is not about
> science."

You say that, but you're ignoring the thrust of his argument.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that the results from Rossi's experiment seem
somewhat dubious. Easy to dismiss a single flawed experiment, right?

However, there have been at least four separate reproductions of the
experiment results since then (article mentions reports of similar results
from Sweden, Italy, Russia and China).

The main question raised by the article can be summarised as: If evidence of a
reproducible experiment with unexplained results exists, which is usually a
key indicator that the experiment warrants further investigation, why is there
sometimes reluctance to investigate when this reproducibility comes along?

Science is not served well by dogma. Interesting results can come from
unexpected places. The wilful ignorance of the reproducibility is the issue
here.

~~~
mannykannot
> Let's say, for argument's sake, that the results from Rossi's experiment
> seem somewhat dubious.

You would not know it from the article, but 'somewhat dubious' is a
mischaracterization that suggests the problems might merely be experimental
difficulties. In reality, the demonstrations have shown a sustained pattern of
concealment and other highly dubious behavior, and there are also significant
purely scientific problems, such as the isotope ratios of the alleged by-
product. That's before we get into Rossi's earlier activities in high-tech
waste management, which led to at least allegations of fraud. You may want to
check out the links several of us have provided in these comments, and then
ask yourself whether Huw Price has accurately described the situation.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Do the links provided tackle the reproductions of the experiment, or just
Rossi's experiment?

~~~
mannykannot
You should read them yourself.

~~~
ZenoArrow
If you've already read them, you could save me some time, a simple yes (they
cover more than just Rossi's experiment) or no would be useful.

------
imaginenore
If Rossi's device really worked, he would be a moron to sell it or even show
it to anybody.

You can start an energy company, start small at the beginning, provide
something like water heating for a small neighborhood. Then use your profits
to grow exponentially until you take everyone else out of business. If you
have such a device, you're only really limited by the chemical supplies
(nickel powder?).

------
blazespin
Wow, 154 comments and complete and utter cluelessness. Yikes. Seriously
people, why are you commenting on a complex subject you clearly know very very
little about? I suggest you go read the articles on lenr-canr.org before any
further commenting. Better yet, get back to your day job. You have no idea how
little you know about this subject. [http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/mt-s...](http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/mt-stupid.png)

Fact: Cold fusion is a phenomenon that has been studied by 100s of scientists
and replicated 1000s of times by folks as diverse as the Navy and Toyota and
published in many many different and respected journals.

------
aetherson
I don't disbelieve in cold fusion, the EM drive, superluminal anything, solve-
all-problems nanotech, or the singularity because of the reputation of
scientists.

I disbelieve them because pessimism. They're just such... "wouldn't it be
great if" results. Wouldn't it be great if we had cheap, limitless, clean
energy? Wouldn't it be great if we were not subject to the tyranny of the
rocket equation? Wouldn't it be great if the stars really were in reach?
Wouldn't it be great if all material needs were going to be met in the next
generation? Wouldn't it be great if we were going to achieve godhead?

It would be great. It's so great that I just don't see it happening. It sounds
like a myth people tell themselves.

This is admittedly not a logically coherent dismissal. But you can't derive
anything from base principles, and if you have to have a heuristic, I think
it's a more useful heuristic than a reputation-based one.

~~~
murbard2
Wouldn't it be great if we could produce fertilizer out of air? Wouldn't it be
great if we could get energy by just digging in the ground? Wouldn't it be
great if we could just prevent polio with a simple injection? Wouldn't it be
great if we could travel by just flying over the ocean?

~~~
yongjik
To take one example, nitrogen was discovered in 1772. Haber process (which
converts nitrogen gas to ammonia) was discovered in 1909, and was successfully
industrialized in 1913.[1]

In other words, when Haber process was discovered, the question was NOT
"wouldn't it be great if we could produce fertilizer out of air?". The
question was, "We _know_ the air is full of substance that makes fertilizer.
How can we make that happen?"

Or, alternatively, when nitrogen was discovered, nobody said "We paved road
for making fertilizer out of air!" It was probably something like "How weird,
air is full of this strange stuff that makes animals suffocate." And
apparently its discoverer went on to call it "noxious air".

Honestly, I can't think of any important scientific discovery that was
accompanied by "This is great! Think what it could do for civilization!"

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process)

~~~
murbard2
>Honestly, I can't think of any important scientific discovery that was
accompanied by "This is great! Think what it could do for civilization!"

Radioactivity.

~~~
isolate
Fire.

~~~
yongjik
"This is great! We can burn down Ook's village! He'll never know what hit
him!"

"We can _what_ down Ook's village?"

