oystla Member
  • Member since Apr 19th 2014
  • Last Activity:

Posts by oystla

    "You are arguing from authority - this one guy is so wonderful that we must all believe him."No idea what You're trying say. What I'm saying is that somewhere in life you have to start trusting first hand experiences from competent scientists.

    Like when not one but many phyisicists say - yes they has visited labs, yes they have studied the setups, the results and yes there is a mystery to be explained.

    Like professor Robert Duncan, who prior to 2009 did not believe in possibilities of LENR reactions. But after taking a jurney through the various labs he saw something that requires explanation. And he is still at it.

    "You can surely see that over any science issue there will always be outliers."
    Of course, so what?
    And is Brillouin an outlier? They use "hydrogen, nickel and electricity" as input and gets an anomalous amount of heat generated. Hmmmmmm, I've heard about this before somewhere?

    But where did This Nickel- hydrogen LENR start? With Rossi? No

    And If you have any curiosity at all, you should read this interview with Professor Focardi linked Below:

    It was however Professor Piantelli that Originally discovered nickel/hydrogen anomalous excess heat ( that is after he heard of Fleischmann and Pons Discovery he rechecked his own strange results on Ni/H research). Indicates how rich this field really is. So Rossi did not really invent anything from scratch, but build on the work from real scientists.


    "You have not addressed my point about H."
    Yes I'm fully aware Hagelstein is a theoretical scientist. And a good one. So what? He has also written Peer reviewed papers together with experimental physcists, like Swartz, , and experimental electrochemists on CF, like Mckubre. And I choose to trust his judgement of the CF field.

    And now it is your turn to read the CR39 paper I linked.

    Several more Peer reviewed papers on CR39 has been published proving there is an anomalous amount of energetic particles generated in CF.

    "....and supposing such to happen in absence of high energy particles would be a hypothesised interpretation of an anomsly - not an anomaly."

    as indicated in my last post. A number of experiments using CR39 have shown anomalous amounts of energetic particles, which leads to the conclusion of nuclear reactions.

    therefore calling it LENR is fully justified.

    But again, the term LENR is just naming the mechanism, it's not a theory. Theory is much more, the explanation of how it can occur within the standard model of physics, giving us a basis for a protocol, something we can use to make predictions. Etc .

    "A Hagelstein summary of F&P. You must forgive me. I don't accept summaries. That is someone else's view of the work. It can't be critiqued. Imagine if I'd accepted one of the many internet summaries of the Lugano results."

    Haha, you are funny. Comparing professor Hagelstein with "internet summaries"
    Of course it can be critiqued. Anyhow it's more than a summary, but you have already made up your mind so don't bother ;-)

    But also you are way too lazy and have a lack of curiosity. If you really are curious of what F&P did you may find all their papers here:


    But i understand you have already made up your mind on Cold Fusion and then it is impossible to change. Fleischmann called this the sign of "pathological skepticism

    "A Brillouin summary of other people work"

    Haha, Again, you did not bother to click the link to read the papers. Again lack of curiosity. The papers had nothing to do with Brillouin. It was just Peer reviewed papers brillouin had listed on their website, not Brillouins work. But very interesting papers from competent scientists.

    For Brillouin, I have no partial opinion. And If they use RF stimulation - so what? The real question is : is there excess energy and what is the source of energy? To be of commercial interest output would in any case have to be many times input energy, so it would be easy to rule out "poor measurements".

    "So even if I did accept other people's opinion, I would not choose them on the matter of experimental methodology."

    I don't Ask you to accept second hand opinions. Try reading the Peer reviewed papers I linked, that is If they are not too advanced for you.

    "If you do accept other people's opinion there must then be the question of why you choose these outliers rather than the much more frequent view?"

    No, I read with interest the first hand testimony of ISCMNS Peer review papers with interest and are fully convinced that nature still have some surprises left to show us.

    A set of about 20 really really interesting papers from Schwartz......

    "But, I'm happy to look at these. Which one is most interesting? (20 is too many for me)."

    What I find interesting, may differ from your interest....but using CR39 to detect anomalous amount of energetic particles I find fascinating, and is enough alone to convinced me that nuclear processes are happening (that shouldn't occur)

    Scroll to page 88:

    "Where is F&P's writeup of their experiment that has never been replicated but proves LENR? (Why, BTW, has it not been replicated?)."

    Wrong. F&P where replicated by Mckubre at SRI.

    You Ask for some scholarly writings?

    This one may be a nice start from professor Hagelstein, which sums up some F&P experiments with clear excess heat.


    This paper I found interesting:


    And this one explains why the institutes in 1989 where not able to replicate F&P, critical conditions where found later in the nineties, but then the mai stream science community showed no interest to go back and investigate,


    And here, a paper on anomalous heat evidence on the Nanor of Dr. Mitchell Swartz

    Do you want more? May be some from Japan or Italy or others?

    "But that is the point. "LENR" is not a scientific theory because it makes no predictions and therefore can never be disproved."

    Who has ever stated that cold fusion, LENR, LANR, LENT or whatever you would Like to call it is a THEORY?

    It has never been a THEORY, but an experimental anomaly!

    A Theory is what is needed to explain, predict, to be used to build a test protocol

    "What (negative) evidence would cause you to conclude that LENR did not exist?"

    - Proof that F&P where swindlers, proof of foul play by the Japanese scientists, proof of Foul play by Mckubre, proof of foul play by Mitchell Swartz etc. Etc. ..

    " I remember the headlines and the (cautious in most cases) excitement in the scientific community. "

    Yes, the press conference was in late March 1989. And the deciding moment was 2. And 3rd May 1989 of the APS meeting in Baltimore where the deciding institutes like CALTECH and MIT sealedd the coffin of F&P. Read the newspaper articles of the time. It's proof enough.

    After 3.rd of May cold fusion was just Cold dead.

    "After a long period of attempted reproduction..."

    The main period of "try to replicate" lasted some 40 days. After Baltimore in May 1989 there where positive results internationally, but no one to listen.

    "F&Ps ideas were not accepted because neither he nor anyone else could reproduce them in a clearer experiment."

    Wrong. They got better reproducability in France (IMRA)

    About why IMRA abandoned cold fusion research, despite they clearly established a scientific phenomenon (yet not useable results): The money ran out, it is as simple as that. No threats, no conspiracy, no nothing. Only no money. When their sponsor Minoru Toyoda died the funds dried up.

    IMRA in France was financed by Technova a subsidiary of Toyota corp. Fleischmann and Pons were there to scale up their system’s energy production and to make it reliable, make it a commercial product. They did produce results, but it was not enough to make a real commercial product out of it.

    Without real money, they couldn’t get a step further. They already had produced compelling evidence that the anomalous heat effect was real. Had they had $120million funding back then, the world would have looked different today.

    Minuro Toyoda was clearly very interested in cold fusion, as shown by the ISCMNS memorial Contribution Award, “Minoru Toyoda Gold Medal”. (Medal is made of 18 carat gold )

    Even at the morning of his death, the story goes that he was briefed on the latest info on CF development.

    Anyhow: it's not over. I think the new "F&P Anomalous heat" Institute at Texas tech University will shed some light on what's going on. Or the ongoing research at University of Missouri.


    Chapter 3 of my criticism of your criticism:

    "Scientists are not easy to convince, not not generally subject to mind control. That is, some may so be, but there are lots of them and it needs only a few to find a new extraordinarily useful discovery like LENR for this to become accepted."

    Haha, you are way too naive. You think scientists are not like the rest of humanity - prefers to follow the pack, don't like changes etc. Etc.

    "The whole point about LENR is that whatever conspiracy theory you like, it is strongly in the interests of individual scientists who have actually discovered it to publicise this."

    Well.......If you want to publicise a new discovery, it has to be Peer reviewed and accepted by "real journals". Since cold fusion one Month after the press conference in 1989 was concluded pure "pathological science", there was no Journals that would publicise and no peers to review papers. And That's been the story ever since.

    Or to repeat what the Nobel Price winner (in physics) Julian Seymour Schwinger said of his attempt to publish papers on Cold fusion :
    "What I had not expected was the venomous criticism, the contempt, the enormous pressure to conform. Has the knowledge that physics is an experimental science been totally lost?

    "It is not credible that science that is openly described could be suppressed for so long, if it worked."

    Yes it is credible. Yes, LENR is openly described, but not in what is considered "real journals". So physcists lacks the interest and willingness and funding to investigate, since consensus is "nothing there".

    The swedish physcist Stephan Pomp said it something like this : I see no Cold Fusion papers being publicised in credible real Journals, therefore I will not investigate the phenomenon.

    So there we have Catch 22: the physics community will not investigate since papers are not published in " real journals", and CF researchers can not get their papers published, since all know it is pathological science and thereforee there are no one to peer review


    More criticism of your criticism:

    "Thus: a bulletproof observation at odds with accepted theory...... is accepted as a phenomena when it is repeatable and clearly well beyond experimental error, even if no theory exists to predict it. "

    Well, again you are wrong. F&P had "bursts of heat" in some one of eight electrolytic cells back in 1989. Bursts with power and energy densities far beyond possible chemical artifacts. But the Scientific community had no patience to wait for papers or more info from F&P. Within 40 days (and 40 nights) it was all over, and F&P was left om Their own.

    One of eight probability to observe a mystery is far far better than the frequency of Terrestrial gamma ray flashes in lightning, which still is considered bulletproof with no theory, while F&P was not.

    And F&P did even better later in France, but by then they where forgotten. And no mainstream scientists one would go near this kind of "Ufology"

    And when the deciding institutes concluded "nothing here, move on" in 1989, the remaining Scientific community followed like obedient dogs. No more debate, even when some labs showed excess heat results.Or as Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT said of excess heat if F&P type experiments:"we have experiments confirming the basic effect, we have experiments showing that energy is produced, that the energetic reaction products aren’t there, and the question is what to do about it. Actually, we should be very interested in these experiments. We should be interested, because we have experimental results which by now have been confirmed a great number of times. We learned about nature from doing experiments. So, here are experimental results. Can we, should we pay attention to them? Follow them up, see, where they lead? Today, sadly, the experiments in the cold fusion business are not considered to be part of science. And that’s the resolution that we have come to as the scientific community. From my perspective, having been in labs, having seen the results, having talked to experimentalists, having looked at the data, having spent great time on it, it looks like pretty much these experiments are real. They need to be taken seriously."


    I have to make some comments to your original criticism here:

    "MFMP have not found reproducible LENR experiments" - you really think MFMP have done enough investigations to conclude? I think not. And If Rossi has got "it", he Obviously have some stimulus mechanism that he has not fully revealed.

    "The issue is that few mainstream scientists agree with Storms' interpretation" you probably mean "no mainestream scientists", since LENR was considered pure pathological science from day one. There is nothing to analyse,discuss or agree/disagree upon.

    "....they are accepted ......only if they meet the bar for experimental or theoretical consistency."
    What do you mean ? Like Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes? TGF's That pose a challenge to current theories of lightning, especially with the discovery of the clear signatures of antimatter produced in lightning. TGF was discovered in 1994, and 20 years later physicists are still struggling with theories to embrace all the observations.....

    And you think 26 years after Fleischmann and Pons, Cold Fusion should have been setled science If it was real? Let me remind you of the story back in 1989:

    In 1989 Dr. Steven E. Koonin of CALTECH (where he was then an employee) called the F&P claim a result of "incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann". And the physcists at the APS meeting 3.May 1989 bursted into applause.

    So one of the greatest scientists of calorimetry in the 20th century, Martin Fleischmann, was incompetent when it came to measure.....excess heat by calorimetry. What an irony.

    The debunking of cold fusion by the physics community was a Shame of science, and the biggest mistake in science of the 20th century. CF was actually a new discovery, that could have solved much of the global warming problem. But physicists turned their back on Fleischmann and Pons way too early. F&P where right in their excess heat measurements, energies far beyond possible chemical artifacts. But physicists are just like people in general: don't like changes, especially from "outsiders".

    The problem in 1989 and which possibly still exists, is that physicists thinks there are no possibilities of "mysterious" nuclear reactions that would not produce expected gamma rays. The complete herecy of 1989 was that two chemists dared to claim some new unthinkable discovery within the area of physics. Like some outsiders trying to learn the dear physicists something completely new. Well, It took only 40 days for the physicists to shoot them down. Would not help If they had a new theory to explain it. Actually, It would make it only worse, since it would be inconcievable that some non physicists where to both discover a new phenomenon and have the theory to explain it. All physicists knew and still know that with nuclear reactions and fusion follows gamma radiation, and none where measured. So it had to be a pure chemical effect or measurement errors. But nature is full of surprises , and we have not reached the end of science..yet..

    After this event Cold Fusion was put in same category as Ufology, so only the boldest scientists would touch the subject, on the risk of their career.

    Anyhow: there are dusins of LENR theories, but lack of funding and interest in the Scientific community holds back the progress of the field. And no theory will initially be able to explain all phenomena, enough with one testable that can predict some outcome as a start.

    Did the "father of the hydrogen bomb"', Edward Teller, get this right back in the earlier days of CF?

    From “The Scientist” 1989:
    “Teller, who attended the three-day workshop at NSF headquarters but not the press conference, hypothesizes “an as-yet undiscovered neutral particle” as the catalytic agent for the cold fusion reaction. But in front of the press, one scientist after another declined to read the statement. One of the sponsors of the workshop, NSF’s Paul Werbos, says, “I didn’t want to appear on TV saying what Teller had written.” Why? Because it was considered a “discredited field” - “It seems unfortunate that an NSF office is now appearing to encourage such discredited work,” wrote Marcel Bardon, director of NSF’s physics division

    Teller in 1992:
    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."

    “nuclear Catalysis”?

    Very Interesting article in Infinite magazine on CF pioneer Richard Oriani, who died in august.

    "Fisher suggested to Oriani that he place the CR-39 detec- tors outside of the electrolyte. He says, “Oriani did that and he found evidence of particles that he could record outside the apparatus. He put two plastic detectors in the gas that was coming off the electrolysis...Lo and behold, he got a shower of tracks on those. Thousands of tracks, more than he cared to count.”

    Unfortunate that the mainstream science community has not looked closer into the CR-39 evidence..

    Frank on E-catworld.com asked a very excellent question which points out a major inconsistency in the entire Rossi story -- how can the nickel be a catalyst if it is converted *entirely* from Ni-58 to Ni-62 during the Lugano Experiment? Note that the answer is highly evasive, typical for Rossi. The correct answer is "it can't be true" -- either it's wrong in the patent or it's wrong in the experiment report, or, as I suspect, it's wrong in both!

    Mary Yugo;
    Please note the Norman D. Cook and Andrea Rossi issued E-cat paper on ArXiv.

    It is rather amusing that they also conclude as I did when I had read the Lugano report:
    - that a 0,2% Ash sample is not likely to be representative of the total
    - that there may be some isotopic separation going on with 30 days at High temperatures

    And this is how they for formulate it
    "The over- whelming abundance of 62Ni34 in the ash and the virtual absence of other isotopes might nonetheless be explained as a consequence of the sampling method. Because ToF-SIMS analysis was made on milligram samples obtained specifically at regions observed under the scanning electron microscope to have undergone morphological changes, it is possible that the 62Ni34 isotopes recoiled toward the surface of the Nickel grains."


    "Nickel was found to be encrusted on the internal surface of the reactor, from which a 2 mg sample of “ash” was obtained near to the center of the charge. Starting with an initial charge of approximately 1 gram, it cannot be said that the 2 mg sample was necessarily representative of the entire Nickel charge..."

    Just had a long discussion (again) with Stephan Pomp on his blog regarding Cold Fusion in general.

    To sum up as I understand his view of CF (which goes for most of mainstream physicists probably):

    Pomp: "There has to be a fact (replicable etc) to be explained".
    So a heat burst "Beyond chemistry" in say one of 5 or 10 tests (only), is junk science and need no explanation, other than "must be artifact". A Strange view of science investigation in my opinion…

    Pomp: "CF is a number of artifacts that CF adherents try to press into "new science" and proudly argue with Kuhn. "
    And this is his flat out opinion with evidently no knowledge of CF research history. - His opinion in the absence of evidence? which is normally called prejudice? Actually he will only accept evidence presented in "real journals", ref below…

    Pomp: "I claim you still need to use the scientific method and LENR seems to have failed for over two decades since I do not see articles in the major (real) journals"
    And here is probably the core of the problem. Mainstream Physicists, like Pomp, wait for facts to be presented in "real journals", where (peer reviewers) historically have dismissed and refused CF papers flat out, since LENR don’t exists, can’t exist, has to be artifacts, need no investigation, evidently pathological science. A catch 22 situation for Science and the progress of science. Luckily, we have brave mainstream scientists that both investigate evidence outside the precious "real Journals", and participate closely in real investigations and yes become ‘believers’.

    So the main conclusion has to be: Don't hope to "science this into something". Make a commercial product and force science into a "crisis" and eventually a paradigm shift. Then, with (most of) the mainstream science community onboard, we may finally get closer to the right theory.

    Hi Mike,

    Did you note the “glow discharge” pictures on Ethan Siegels commentary on the last E-cat test? He had stolen a few picures from
    Jean-Louis and called them “cold fusion hoax”. But Siegel had obviously no idea (i.e. did not bother to investigate, why – because it’s cold fusion i.e. pseudoscience). You can read more about the actual story in the comment I wrote on the Stephan Pomp site (comment made 5.January 13:49). And Jean Louis is today focused on developing drone technology and less on “overunity” science it seems….


    I thought possible inductive heating (or change with temp) could be part of the non linearity required to explain the problem.

    If it was a Compact FUSION Three Phase Power Controller they used, as picture may indicate, they would be able to connect it to PC and log the data, like power delivered, run diagnostics etc. Hope they did.