Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    Quote from joshua cude


    Do you have some evidence to support this? You do like to cite things.


    I rely on what JR wrote on Vortex.


    (1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg64637.html"
    "The US military is in favor of cold fusion and it has a great deal of political and economic power. Most cold fusion research in the US for the last 20 years has been funded by the military"


    (2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg103252.html"
    "Government has also been nearly the only source of funding for cold fusion since 1989. Fleischmann, Pons, Miles, McKubre and nearly all others were funded by the British and U.S. governments, mainly from DARPA and other military sources."


    (3) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg103986.html"
    "Fortunately (I guess it is fortunate), cold fusion has numerous weapons-related potential applications, so it has been kept on life-support by organizations such as DARPA. You must understand that DARPA's fundamental purpose is to find better ways to blow people up. That is the purpose of most of the R&D money spent by the U.S. government."


    (4) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg106173.html"
    "Government is still the only source of money in the field, mainly from DARPA, the ENEA and the Japanese government." ... "No research in cold fusion could have been done without institutional support." ... "There is not a single important technology in which the U.S. and British governments did not play a key role."


    For evidence or any other detail, please, ask the CF/LENR librarian.


    About the contribution from ENEA (cited above), it is worth noting this scheme:


    https://fusionefredda.files.wo…del-2015-03-21-200336.png


    It has been extracted from the following presentation at the ICCF18 Conference:
    https://mospace.umsystem.edu/x…eOverviewPresentation.pdf


    The scheme seems to be based on firsthand info. This is the bio of the author: http://iccf18.research.missouri.edu/bio_hubler.php

    Ascoli wrote:


    Quote

    me:


    I rely on what JR wrote on Vortex.


    You rely on the person who said in 2011 that "Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher," even though you have argued that the 2011 demonstrations were fatally and obviously flawed.


    Quote

    (1) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg64637.html"


    "The US military is in favor of cold fusion and it has a great deal of political and economic power. Most cold fusion research in the US for the last 20 years has been funded by the military"


    The qualification "in the US" is not part of your claim. As I said, much funding has come from the Japanese, Indian, and Italian governments, and Toyota. Even in the US, I would need better evidence than an assertion from Rothwell. The EPRI, the state of Utah, possibly SRI, Sidney Kimmel, the angel for Lattice Energy, NASA and lately Cherokee have supported some research into cold fusion. If by most he means more than half, it's possible, but I'd be surprised. Anyway, it is a long way from funding most of the cold fusion research on the planet.


    Quote

    (2) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg103252.html"


    "Government has also been nearly the only source of funding for cold fusion since 1989. Fleischmann, Pons, Miles, McKubre and nearly all others were funded by the British and U.S. governments, mainly from DARPA and other military sources."


    This makes no sense. Fleischmann and Pons were self-funded until 1989, and then presumably they worked with the Utah center for cold fusion (state funded), and then they moved to France and were supported generously by Toyota. After that, Pons quit the field, and Fleischmann mainly collaborated with other groups. McKubre had substantial funding from EPRI, and wrote a detailed report for them. EPRI is neither government nor military. Miles was in the military, but he (the story goes) was demoted for his cold fusion efforts.


    Quote

    (3) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg103986.html"


    "Fortunately (I guess it is fortunate), cold fusion has numerous weapons-related potential applications, so it has been kept on life-support by organizations such as DARPA. You must understand that DARPA's fundamental purpose is to find better ways to blow people up. That is the purpose of most of the R&D money spent by the U.S. government."


    You are using idle musings to support your case.


    Quote

    (4) "http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg106173.html"


    "Government is still the only source of money in the field, mainly from DARPA, the ENEA and the Japanese government." ... "No research in cold fusion could have been done without institutional support." ... "There is not a single important technology in which the U.S. and British governments did not play a key role."


    First of all "government" is not a synonym for DOD, since the statement explicitly includes Italian and Japanese governments, and not all government support is military.


    Second, unless he is including Toyota, then he is calling the work of P&F in France "no research".


    Third, whether it's true or not that the US or British governments have played a key role in every single important technology, (a) the US or British governments are not the DOD, and (b) much cold fusion research in India, Japan, France, Italy, and Russia did not involve the US or British governments.


    So, you have failed to support the claim that the "DoD has been [cold fusion's] major funder throughout a quarter of century."

    Frank:

    Quote

    stephenrenzz Well it doesn't surprise me your logic does not extend to the consideration of fact. Nor does it surprise me that circumstantial evidence of the sort you provide is much closer to a fairy story than reality.Best regardsFrank


    Skirting the issue again, with a totally tangential response. Frank, I worry about you.


    IH etc.

    Quote

    You must have been gone for awhile since this was discussed already to death.


    Please point me to the responses to that issue...

    Quote from Ascoli65

    I rely on what JR wrote on Vortex.


    I got that info. mainly from the acknowledgements in papers, and from things like the slides show above from Bob Duncan. He lists DARPA, ONR and other DoD sources as the major contributors. He knows much more about funding than I do.


    I do not know of any money from the DoE or other U.S. agencies. But I do not keep track carefully. I am sure there is a lot I do not know about this.

    IH Fanboy wrote:


    Quote

    Joshua Cude wrote:


    Lewis and Koonin hailed from Caltech, with a team whose claim to fame was a sloppy replication attempt.


    Not the point. They were effective skeptics, and they did not benefit from hot fusion largesse was the point.


    As for sloppiness, Lewis's experiment was published in Nature, unlike P&F's paper, which was rejected by the same journal. (Nature doesn't benefit from hot fusion funding either.) And Lewis's paper did not need a list of errata a quarter the length of the paper itself


    Quote

    Are you absolutely certain about that? No reputation trap at all?


    I'm not absolutely certain about anything, but there is no plausible motivation for the Caltech scientists to conspire together with the MIT hot fusion people to destroy reputations.


    The prevailing sentiment in mainstream science was made clear after the P&F press conference. Cold fusion was welcomed with unprecedented enthusiasm. P&F were treated like rock stars at the subsequent ACS meeting. Nearly everyone wanted it to be true -- no one wanted to be left behind. As Storms put it:



    This "huge bubble of enthusiasm" could not have been plausibly deflated by the greed of hot fusion scientists. Scientists in other fields had no motivation to support such a scheme.


    Quote

    joshua cude wrote:


    Agreed. But those working on the tokamaks would be decimated financially.


    Their projects would be decimated. But they are trained scientists -- many of the leaders are academics. They could simply refocus their efforts in other related areas -- like cold fusion.


    Quote

    joshua cude wrote:


    Nearly all hot fusion scientists had a visceral negative reaction, and did have considerable influence on the political decision makers. A vocal minority can wield significant influence.


    As I recall, they were pretty careful not to voice visceral negative reactions in that first month. Of course, they might be expected to be the most skeptical because they understand the reason it is so extraordinary better than anyone else.


    But a lot of nuclear physicists were not involved in hot fusion research, and many were strongly sympathetic early on. These include Douglas Morrison (a CERN physicist) who wrote gushingly about cold fusion in his first of many newsletters on the topic. His emails gradually became more skeptical over the following month until he became one of the more effective critics and skeptics of the field, attending all the ICCF meetings until his death around 2001. Others include Carlo Rubbia and Teller, both of whom indicated their subsequent sympathy by pursuing competing fields.


    Yes, a vocal minority can wield a lot of influence, but they can't persuade all of mainstream science (especially not other physicists) to reject clean and abundant energy to nearly everyone's detriment just to benefit the hot fusioneers. What would motivate Morrison and Koonin and Lewis and the entire ERAB panel to be complicit in such a diabolically evil plan. Just. Not. Plausible.


    So, yes, there is a reputation trap in the same way there is a reputation trap for scientists to work on perpetual motion machines or dowsing or astrology or creationism. Most of mainstream science regards cold fusion as almost certainly not real and the efforts in the field to be of low quality. The cure for this trap is good science. The problem is that when good science is done the effect disappears.


    Anyway, regardless of any reputation trap, many scientists worked on cold fusion anyway. And nothing the hot fusion scientists could had done to prevent P&F from developing unequivocal evidence for the phenomenon in their well-funded lab in France. But with vastly more funding and time than they used to make the original claim, they made no tangible progress in France, and Toyota shut them down. You can't blame the hot fusion people for that.


    Quote

    joshua cude wrote:


    Oil was never threatened by fission as oil is primarily used for transportation, while fission is primary used for fixed power distribution.


    Good grief. I meant fossil fuel. Coal and gas did not shut fission down either. And while fission turned out not to be as big a threat, the promise of power to cheap to meter was the buzz word of the times.


    Quote

    Fission is not threatened by solar, even with government subsidies for solar.


    Well, in Germany fission is being phased out to be replaced by renewables.


    Quote

    Tubes were threatened by transistors, but there were no "tubes lobbies" in those days, and much less secrecy surrounding how to build effective and reliable transistors, so the information spread rapidly.


    There were no tube lobbies because it would be futile, just as trying to suppress cold fusion would be futile if it were real. And secrecy in cold fusion in the early days was no greater than in transistors. Certainly by now, all the P&F procedures are disclosed.


    Quote

    On the other hand, LENR+ threatens all energy interests.


    Not with what's been demonstrated publicly so far, which is just heat with a COP no better than a heat pump.


    Anyway, with the advent of electric cars, just about any energy source competes with all other.


    But it doesn't matter. Clean, abundant, and inexpensive energy benefits everyone else. The standard of living of everyone would improve, as would the environment. Energy interests can't stop that. And the enthusiasm of 1989 shows how hungry the planet is for something like what cold fusion promised.


    Quote

    joshua cude wrote:


    The reference to greed was not aimed at the DOE. But rather, the reference to greed was to those receiving millions in funding per year (hundreds of millions over the years) for their hot fusion research.


    I know that's what you meant. But the people who make the decisions about funding are at the DOE, and they consult scientific experts who do not benefit from the funding. The DOE people are human too, and they would be motivated to save the billions they have to spend on hot fusion if they could get the same results in a much cheaper way.


    Quote

    Soon after the announcement, congress was seriously considering diverting significant portions of this funding to cold fusion research efforts. This is what caused great consternation in the hot fusion scientific circles, and the reason for their vociferous opposition. It might not be plain to you, but it is to me.


    Again, hot fusion does not create wealth. It consumes it. Even if the hot fusion people were motivated by greed to lobby against cold fusion, the DOE would be motivated by greed to support cold fusion, as would the experts they consulted. And all the power is with the DOE.

    Quote

    It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind who does not truly believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it.


    Fascinating that Mr. Rothwell chooses to cite this, as it so eloquently describes the barrage of sarcastic incredulity and downright malevolence that he and others oppose to Rossi and Mills... :^)

    Rothwell wrote:


    Quote

    me:


    The vast majority of computer scientists, programmers, and computer users benefited from the introduction of microcomputers and personal computers in the 1980s. It allowed an enormous expansion of the field, increased profit and opportunities. Yet despite that, every major minicomputer manufacturer and most of the mainframe computer companies, such as DEC, Data General and NEC, either opposed the introduction of microcomputers or ignored them.


    Right. And it would also be totally implausible for someone to suggest that these companies "carefully constructed a reputation trap in concert with scientists from [other universities or companies who were not similarly threatened], so that anyone claiming positive results (and there were hundreds) or even being associated with [microcomputers] became scientific pariahs."


    And clearly they *didn't* slow Steve Jobs or Bill Gates down appreciably.


    I'm not saying it's implausible that the hot fusion people would oppose or ignore cold fusion. I'm saying it's implausible they could effectively suppress it by constructing a reputation trap with the complicity of scientists not threatened in any way by cold fusion -- indeed, who stood to benefit from it like everyone else.


    So, your example, in which there was no reputation trap supports my point.


    Quote

    If that were the only example in history, you might have a point. However, if you read the history of commerce, science, military science and war, banking, transportation, or any other human endeavor, you will find that people in the leading institutions who dominate a field often oppose progress. They often oppose things which would benefit themselves. This is such a common occurrence it is more the rule than the exception.


    Oppose, yes. Successfully construct a bogus reputation trap with complicity of others not threatened by the progress? Totally implausible.

    Quote from joshua cude


    IH Fanboy wrote:
    Lewis and Koonin hailed from Caltech, with a team whose claim to fame was a sloppy replication attempt. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/b…lseDebunkingCALTECH.shtml


    joshua cude wrote:
    Not the point.


    This is the point—their skepticism might have been effective with some, but it was never sound.


    Quote from joshua cude

    joshua cude wrote:
    As for sloppiness, Lewis's experiment was published in Nature


    This is an appeal to authority. Nature must occasionally retract papers. They are not the end-all be-all. They can make mistakes. The reviewers can have biases.


    Quote from joshua cude


    joshua cude wrote:
    but there is no plausible motivation for the Caltech scientists to conspire together with the MIT hot fusion people to destroy reputations.


    Sure there is. Lewis was incensed by the secrecy of P&F, and stated as much to news reporters. Watch Nathan Lewis confront Dr. Fleischmann and listen to his voice. (You can find this clip pretty much everywhere.) He has the air of youth and arrogance, standing up to one of the most renowned electrochemists in the world at that time. He used this whole affair as a pedestal to advance his career. He had every reason to attack Dr. Fleischmann, and with such gall after carrying out such a sloppy experiment.


    Quote from joshua cude


    joshua cude wrote:
    They could simply refocus their efforts in other related areas -- like cold fusion.


    But that’s the thing: they didn’t view it that way. What with hot fusion reactors that require billions of dollars of research, development, and construction costs. Big science. If you can achieve better results with a simple table-top device, sort of takes the fun out of it, and would have resulted in the loss of the direct tap to big taxpayer dollars. Hot fusion scientists are literally being paid pensions now. And for what? What have they achieved for the world?


    Quote from joshua cude


    joshua cude wrote:
    nothing the hot fusion scientists could had done to prevent P&F from developing unequivocal evidence for the phenomenon in their well-funded lab in France.


    They made progress in France, but unfortunately, all of the parameters to make a reaction take place reliably were not known at the time. The clock and the funding ran out. Better and more reliable replication techniques were later developed, particularly by SPAWAR and others.


    Quote from joshua cude


    joshua cude wrote:
    Clean, abundant, and inexpensive energy benefits everyone else. The standard of living of everyone would improve, as would the environment. Energy interests can't stop that.


    Agreed, not in a world connected by the Internet. But they and others can certainly slow it down.


    Quote from joshua cude

    joshua cude wrote:
    The DOE people are human too, and they would be motivated to save the billions they have to spend on hot fusion if they could get the same results in a much cheaper way.


    Large government bureaucracies are less benevolent than you think. Their primary thrust is to keep the bureaucracy (and therefore their livelihoods) in place. The more they can spend the better. If you don’t believe me, just take a look at some of the NSA programs leaked by whistleblowers over time—the smaller more nimble projects were always disfavored, and replaced by large government spends. Why? Because that is how careers are advanced.

    Quote from cam

    I think Jed Rothwell would be helpful if nuclearists didn't have huge national and international data banks. You can find anything you need there.


    When experiments are conducted, the parameters of the experiment are critical. If the parameters of two sets of experiments are significantly off, it is unsafe to apply conclusions taken from one set to the results of the other. I'm going to wager that any careful scientist will know this deep down as a matter of professional intuition when proofreading copy for any conclusions that are drawn in connection with a new experiment.


    By contrast, you seem to be saying above that the circumstances of the experiments tabulated in EXFOR can be assumed to be sufficiently similar to those of the electrolysis, gas diffusion and glow discharge LENR experiments that the LENR experiments will not add anything to what is in EXFOR. This is a strong claim.


    Quote from cam

    By the way, I have found something for our reflexions.
    Violante et al.
    MASS SPECTROMETRY: CRITICAL ASPECTS RELATED TO THE PARTICLES DETECTION IN THE CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE (ICCF 15)


    reaction D+D = 4 He + heat (24 MeV for event) in the palladium lattice.
    Even if the palladium lattice promoted that rare reaction, 24 MeV gammas cannot become sensible heat. LET for gammas is too high to yield heat of high enthalpic value. In normal conditions such an article would have been screened.


    I myself don't find dd fusion (or fusion of deuterons in general) plausible as an explanation for heat and helium in PdD LENR, despite high-profile LENR researchers who suggest (or insist) otherwise. So we're agreed on this point. But you miss the nuances of their positions. They're saying that the 24 MeV are thermalized as heat in place of an energetic gamma being emitted, and they each provide different explanations for how this might happen. I am not persuaded by any of them, but they're not so naive as to overlook something this basic.

    Quote from joshua cude

    so that anyone claiming positive results (and there were hundreds) or even being associated with [microcomputers] became scientific pariahs."


    You are wrong about that. I was working for one of the minicomputer companies in the late 1970s. They fired many people who were in favor of shifting over to microcomputers, including people high in management. Within the mini- and mainframe companies those people were pariahs. Fortunately, they soon got jobs with the growing microcomputer industry.


    I soon quit, and the place went down the tubes.

    Quote from cam

    Perhaps there is no explicit statement, but not even one article in your collection is included in the data banks of IAEA or BNL which represent the Generally Accepted Nuclear Science. Try yourself.


    Roughly 1,300 of the papers in my collection came from peer-reviewed journals which I copied from the libraries at Los Alamos and Georgia Tech. Unfortunately, I cannot upload most of these because of copyright restrictions. See:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

    IH:

    Quote

    Lewis and Koonin hailed from Caltech, with a team whose claim to fame was a sloppy replication attempt.


    jc:

    Quote

    Not the point.


    IH:

    Quote

    This is the point—their skepticism might have been effective with some, but it was never sound.


    No, you're still missing the point. You are arguing that scientists opposed cold fusion for selfish reasons like preserving hot fusion funding. Lewis and Koonin were not involved in hot fusion research, and whether or not you think their objections were sound doesn't matter. They were effective, and they were not recipients of hot fusion largesse.


    Quote

    joshua cude wrote:


    This is an appeal to authority. Nature must occasionally retract papers. They are not the end-all be-all. They can make mistakes. The reviewers can have biases.


    You called the work sloppy and cited (appealed to) the authority of Krivit and his co-author.


    Nature is a premier journal, and while they are not infallible, they are certainly more qualified to recognized sloppiness than is Krivit.


    Anyway, time has vindicated Lewis's criticism. That experiment has been all but abandoned with essentially no progress and no improvement in the quality of the evidence since 1989.


    Quote

    joshua cude wrote:


    Sure there is. Lewis was incensed by the secrecy of P&F, and stated as much to news reporters. Watch Nathan Lewis confront Dr. Fleischmann and listen to his voice. (You can find this clip pretty much everywhere.) He has the air of youth and arrogance, standing up to one of the most renowned electrochemists in the world at that time. He used this whole affair as a pedestal to advance his career. He had every reason to attack Dr. Fleischmann, and with such gall after carrying out such a sloppy experiment.


    Well, you are right that the fiasco was good for his career. But that is only because in the view of the mainstream, he prevailed, and his experiment convinced a lot of people, whether you think it was sloppy or not.


    As you have said, in science, the truth will out, and scientists know that. Especially for an experiment as easily accessible as cold fusion, scientists who thought there was anything to it would have expected it to be vindicated in short order.


    Therefore, what you call his motivation could only be a plausible motivation if he were all but certain that cold fusion would not prevail. Because if it did prevail, his career would have suffered.


    And the only way he could be all but certain that cold fusion would not prevail, was if he was all but certain cold fusion was bogus. And in that case, he acted honestly and honorably in an effort to reveal the truth. And he has been rewarded for his efforts.


    Quote

    joshua cude wrote:


    But that’s the thing: they didn’t view it that way. What with hot fusion reactors that require billions of dollars of research, development, and construction costs. Big science. If you can achieve better results with a simple table-top device, sort of takes the fun out of it, and would have resulted in the loss of the direct tap to big taxpayer dollars.


    Look, the millions goes to research, not so the scientists can by Ferraris. Their salaries are typical of scientists everywhere.


    But sure, if scientists have invested a lot of time and attracted big money for a project, they are reluctant to admit there is a much easier way. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be a crushing blow to their career income, or even career progress. In fact hanging on and attempting to suppress new science would be far worse for their career if the new science were ever vindicated. Again, their adamant opposition is only consistent with their being all but sure that cold fusion is bogus.


    Quote

    Hot fusion scientists are literally being paid pensions now. And for what? What have they achieved for the world?


    On average the triple product of density, temperature, and confinement time has doubled every 18 months or so, and if ITER is built, it is likely it will exceed the Lawson criterion for ignition. In a century, today's hot fusion scientists might be given their credit, just as Otto Lilienthal and Samuel Langley are for powered flight, even though they did not themselves accomplish it.


    You know, until a bridge is completed, not one vehicle has been transported across it. But that doesn't mean progress in its construction is useless.


    Quote

    joshua cude wrote:


    They made progress in France, but unfortunately, all of the parameters to make a reaction take palace reliably were not known at the time. The clock and the funding ran out. Better and more reliable replication techniques were later developed, particularly by SPAWAR and others.


    Toyota did not go broke. They *stopped* the funding for lack of progress. It took 100k to claim the definitive discovery of the phenomenon. Fifty million more over 6 years was not enough to improve matters, or even to convince the world it was real. It is characteristic of real phenomena that they become more manifest and more reproducible with protracted investigation, even if an understanding is not achieved, just by simple searches of parameter space. See for example, HTSC. It is characteristic of pathological science that as the experiments improve, the effect becomes more modest. Cold fusion fits the latter far better, that is also consistent with a century of robust and reproducible nuclear science.


    Quote

    joshua cude wrote:


    Agreed, not in a world connected by the Internet. But they and others can certainly slow it down.


    I find it inconceivable that they could cause a 27 year delay in an experiment accessible as accessible as cold fusion and so widely publicized in 1989, and so widely attempted. The entire modern physics revolution took about 27 years, and that involved dozens of new phenomena on a similar scale, and many new and revolutionary ideas. But in cold fusion, as Hagelstein says, after 27 years, "aside from the existence of an excess heat effect, there is very little that our community agrees on". No progress!


    Quote

    joshua cude wrote:


    Large government beuroacracies are less benevolent than you think.


    Saving money does not require benevolence. It represents greed.


    Quote

    Their primary thrust is to keep the beuroacracy (and therefore their livelihoods) in place.


    Their livelihoods are benefitted when they benefit their political bosses. And that means getting results that are popular with the public without costing the public money. Hot fusion does none of that. The public (like you) does not have the patience to wait 50 years, and they hate taxes. Getting the same result now, for less money benefits the public, makes the politicians happy, and that ensures the livelihoods of the bureaucrats who made it happen. The DOE would have loved nothing better than a real cold fusion phenomenon. Unfortunately, it appears it is not to be.


    Quote

    The more they can spend the better.


    Yea, because taxes are everyone's favorite thing...

    Quote from joshua cude

    You called the work sloppy and cited (appealed to) the authority of Krivit and his co-author.


    I call it sloppy because it was. It was grotesque unscientific cargo-cult thinking. Read this:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf


    Quote from joshua cude

    Anyway, time has vindicated Lewis's criticism. That experiment has been all but abandoned with essentially no progress and no improvement in the quality of the evidence since 1989.


    You are deluded! You have no clue what you are talking about, and evidently you have read nothing about cold fusion, or you understood nothing. Heck, just read Miles or McKubre.

    @Eric Walker

    Quote

    you seem to be saying above that the circumstances of the experiments tabulated in EXFOR can be assumed to be sufficiently similar to those of the electrolysis, gas diffusion and glow discharge LENR experiments that the LENR experiments will not add anything to what is in EXFOR. This is a strong claim.


    I'm only saying that no article on cold fusion has ever been accepted in the IAEA or BNL data banks. Article on cold fusion are only present in ICCF or in Jed Rothwell's collection, as far as I know.
    The cold fusion literature has been rejected by the Generally Accepted Nuclear Science. So I can infer that cold fusion is rejected by GANS.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.