In dense aether model the acceptation of breakthrough finding can be understood like the analogy of the surface tension of society (dark matter effect of gravitating function of money), which prohibits the smooth merging of massive galaxies and black holes in astrophysics. The point here is, the people naturally follow the money in similar way, like the massive objects follow the gravitational field and they move toward their gradient, which considers the utilization of findings. But at the moment, when the gradient of money density is very pronounced (as it's common at the case of breakthrough findings, which promise huge incentives), then the opposite effect can be observed and such a gradient effectively slows down the smooth acceptation of such a finding. This effect has been recognize long time in microeconomy as so-called Gartner hype curve. This hype is the most pronounced, the more breaking its announcement gets. It corresponds the anti-kick of black holes before their merging. This analogy just illustrates, that the general emergent principles driving our human society and material world around it are geometrically similar each other.

The important aspect of this analogy is, it manifest itself at both large, both small scales in symmetric way and it serves as a mechanism of censorship of information. The big monopoly companies just boycotts and censor information about LENR and overunity findings as effectively, as their inventors itself from the same reason: the fear of lost of profit. Except that the inventors fear the lost of FUTURE profit and the big companies fear the lost of PAST profit. Both mechanisms lead into establishing of information horizon, i.e. the censorship barrier which prohibits the free spreading of information about breakthrough findings and their implementation. It also increases the competition between inventors and it leads into duplicated research. Such a barrier occurs even during plain information exchange between two subjects which differ by their complexity and intelligence very much: once some person or idea is just a bit smarter than you, then you can learn and adopt it easily. But once the subject becomes substantially more complex, then the information will bounce from you with total reflection mechanism and you'll get not anything...

So it has no good meaning to criticize the greedy Big Oil lobby for boycotting the information about cold fusion or overunity findings at the moment, once their greedy inventors are doing the same and even from the very same reason. The possible solution is to provide incentives, which would make the spreading of information more palatable for both parties and which would smooth the money density gradient existing there: the big monopoly companies should get some compensation for the lost of existing profit and the inventors should get some incentive for revealing information about their findings.

This article is correct in some ways. I made similar points in my paper. But the article is a little unfair to the Wrights. Their business strategy was not only their own. They were working with the Charles Flint Co., which was a gigantic arms dealer. Flint advised them and guided their dealings with the U.S. and European military organizations. In the end, they did get lucrative contracts. Also, they were funded by some of the biggest banks and the wealthiest people in the U.S., and for a few years they did some important, ground-breaking R&D. That ended in 1912 when Wilbur Wright died, at age 45. Orville was not interested in running a company, so he sold out.

Quote

Here it is clear that the censorship is not done (yet?) by big companies, but by big science

Yes, many people already noted it. Huw Price was not first, who realized it. George Miley describes his experience from cold fusion conference:

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

"I have tenure, so I don't have to worry about my reputation," commented physicist George Miley, 65. "But if I were an assistant professor, I would think twice about getting involved."

The fear of carrier has lead the young physicists into a collective dismissal of cold fusion. It's also the lack of life experience and tendency for schematic thinking, which leads younger people into distrust of breakthrough findings.

Actually the cold fusion had been censored and boycotted with Big Science a well before the Big Oil Lobby has become aware of it (Wend & Irion 1923, Panneth & Patters 1926, Tandberg 1931).

We can see it everywhere: Boeing company was what actually supported the EMDrive research, NASA already less - but what does the opposition all the time are the young postdocs and solely insignificant moderators at public forums all around internet.

Quote from AlainCo

Tycoons, like the one who funded Wright Brothers

Tycoons did not fund the Wrights until 1908, when much of their work was done. It was pretty much done when they got the 1906 patent.

They did make important contributions after that, and the money did help, but the groundbreaking genius-level contributions were from 1900 to 1905. They spent little money on their research. About $1,000, which is about $20,000 today. On the other hand, they had a well equipped machine shop (for bicycle manufacturing), and an expert mechanic to assist them. I guess in modern terms that would be worth about $500,000 to $1 million.

Their main instrument was the wind tunnel, which cost a few dollars and was mainly made from hacksaw blades. It produced excellent data. They used that data in complicated equations to design the airplane from first principles. No one would try to do such complicated mathematical modeling today without a computer.

It is unlikely anyone could do such superb new engineering nowadays with such a small budget. I doubt there is any low hanging fruit. But there might be.

They were not amateurs, as you see from Wilbur's 1901 paper:

http://invention.psychology.ms…library/Aeronautical.html

I regret to say that in my opinion, small scale cold fusion experiments done by non-experts have contributing nothing to the field.

Quote

why LENR is rejected is now quite clear to me, it is because there is no theory

IMO it's rejected, because it's potentially dangerous and disruptive technology. The governments need to have technology, which will force the people into another spending money for distribution of energy from central sources (ala SunCell) - not the hideout neutron sources and potential initiators of cheap fusion bombs for terrorists. The lack of theory makes no obstacle for example in research of dark matter or high temperature superconductivity. After all, the problem of cold fusion isn't the lack of theory but exactly the opposite: there are too many of them.

Quote

I know there are supports, especially in non scientific domain, but they need support by solid scientific results

The last two years were rather disappointment for cold fusion progress, but IMO the cold fusion research doesn't stagnate, but it gets increasingly classified as it moves into domain of private, military and applied research.

Quote

no paradigm shift until the new theory explains all the past facts

IMO you missed the paradigm shift in our observation of Universe. In dense aether model its evolution resembles the observation of water surface with its own ripples into an increasing distance (which is essentially what the improvements in observational technology allow for us). At the small scales the water surface looks complex, hyperdimensional, noisy and turbulent. But with increasing distance the turbulences compensate mutually and the spreading of ripples gets determinist form of regular circles. Under such a situation isn't difficult to introduce a reductionist theories, which will make effective predictions, not just postdictions.

But with increasing distance scales the spreading of surface ripples becomes hyperdimensional, stochastic and indeterminist again, because their scattering in the additional dimension of underwater becomes dominant again. The determinist reductionist theories won't work anymore and every attempt for explanation of reality will bring another questions. Which is the emergent era of observable reality understanding, which we are entering by now. The problem of LENR theory is, there is no simple straightforward mechanism, which could be applied to all known examples of cold fusion and transmutations. So that general LENR theory is similar illusion, like the theory of everything in mainstream physics. We can only delimit more and less general mechanisms, which contribute to it.

We need each other (theorists & accidential experimenters) to bring about a successful outcome for LENR/Cold Fusion, advancements are just around the corner!

Let's upgrade our vision of the future of LENR/Cold Fusion from the glass being half empty to the glass being half full.

Some advancements are created by theory and then an experiment carried out to prove it.
Some advancements are created by "accident' and then theory comes in to describe the advancement.

10 Inventions That Changed The World, But Were Made By Mistake
http://www.storypick.com/inventions-made-by-mistake/

Also

The Accidental Inventor
http://discovermagazine.com/1996/oct/theaccidentalinv893

Christopher Columbus of chemists, set boldly forth to discover a new
technology of refrigeration. Luckily, he screwed up and invented Teflon instead.
Roy Plunkett was only 27 years old and had been working as a chemist at the
Jackson Laboratory at E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company for just two years when,
in the spring of 1938, he made a discovery that brought him lasting fame.
He had been trying to invent a new type of Freon, a class of compounds that in
the 1930s were proving to be immensely useful as the principal gases in
refrigerators and air conditioners. Today we call them chlorofluorocarbons,
or cfcs, and know them to be a major culprit in depleting the atmosphere’s
ozone layer, but back then they were miracle substances--safe, nonflammable
substitutes for toxic and even explosive refrigerants.

On an April morning 58 years ago, the young chemist could not have suspected
that he was about to discover a material with such strange and unexpected properties
that they had hardly even been dreamed of, a material that would eventually
become an indispensable part of everything from space capsules to heart valves
to frying pans--and one that had absolutely nothing to do with refrigeration.
Roy Plunkett was about to discover Teflon.

The importance of Plunkett’s story, however, lies not so much in the triumph of
invention and commercialization as in what it suggests about the nature of invention
itself. Invention is often thought of as systematic problem solving, the kind that
supposedly goes on at the well-manicured campuses of corporate research
laboratories. In fact, many important inventions arose, and continue to arise,
from the creative use of an accident or mistake. This is a unique and somewhat
neglected form of creativity, every bit as ingenious and awesome as the more deliberate sort.

Much of the act of invention is shrouded in mystery, to be sure.
Even when people set out to act purposefully and rationally, they wind up
doing things they did not intend. In principle, the accident or the unexpected
obstacle that gives rise to a creative invention is not all that different from the
unexpected traffic jam that forces us to drive through a new and interesting
neighborhood, the pesky weed that turns out to enhance our garden’s variety,
or the empty shelf at the supermarket that spurs us to improvise a new recipe.
But in practice, events like Plunkett’s are far fewer, and we cannot help asking
ourselves: What makes it possible to turn the unlooked-for chance into novel
fortune? Not surprisingly, we find a subtle interplay of individual and
surroundings: a mind supple enough to turn a screwup into a creative
opportunity, and an environment that makes such creativity possible.............

................The knack for serendipity may turn out to be the investor's most important talent.
To some degree, the contrasting reputations of these two scientists
underscore how the prejudices and styles of science and technology
were evolving in the middle of the twentieth century. Whereas
Plunkett proceeded by luck and serendipity, Flory took the high road of
theoretical and systematic methodology, upon which corporate
research laboratories increasingly sought to rely. With his stature
and influence in the scientific community, Flory embodied the
growing prestige attached to theoretical science. Roy Plunkett’s
relative obscurity showed how far technological creativity had come
to be seen as an almost purely corporate, communal activity.

Quote

you make it quite replicable .. today most people try to reinvent new process, expecting serendipity again

The LENR community is guilty in this second point itself - because it simply avoids replications in similar way, like the mainstream physicists.

Everyone is researching LENR under his own steam which would enable them to issue his own patents and he classifies just the experimental details, which would lead into successful replication.

At the case of overunity research it leads into picturesque situation, when all results are presented at blurry and shaky youtube videos only.

Even the biggest authorities of this research (Searl, Johnson, Meyl etc.) never leaved the usable schemes of their devices, only ambiguous patents.

The "greedy" fossil fuel lobby has an easy work under such a circumstances.

Quote

here was ignored serendipity that F&P decided to investigate

It should be noted, that F&P just replicated the fifty years old research of Tandberg. The secret of geniality is in hiding the sources. The intentional hiding of continuity of research is also trait, which doesn't help the progress in cold fusion research.

As we can see, there are multiple socioeconomic mechanisms, which keep the research of breakthrough finding (i.e. these ones based on dual paradigm) fragmented and isolated - in both time, both space. In similar way the dark matter particles are kept itself at distance, being formed with "bubbles" of space-time of negative energy which are repelling mutually like real bubbles. From the same reason the dark matter not only is kept from mainstream (i.e. massive bodies) at distance, but it also remains diluted. Only at the moment, when it reaches the critical density, the new material phase gets formed in a singular event (in socioeconomic this event correspond so-called technological singularity, which materializes breakthrough findings, compare also Structure of scientific revolutions).

The reason why I'm talking about emergent geometry here is the predictive power of this analogy, which would enable us to utilize the potential of breakthrough findings better. Only when we understand well, why the research of these findings gets systematically delayed we can develop an effective approach for solving this situation for future.

Recent example of an accident that advances LENR.

Bob Greenyer doing a short interview with of one of the Indian nuclear scientists:

Ecco heater discussion

When was Cold Fusion first openly written about in the media?

Earliest example I could find is a New York Times article from December 30, 1956, see attached example.

Quote from Corn Bread

When was Cold Fusion first openly written about in the media?

Paneth and Peters, 1926.

People have always openly written about it. That is not the problem. The problem is what they write.