Skip to comments.Physics Professor Comes Out of Closet Admits LENR is For Real
Posted on 01/06/2014 10:10:19 PM PST by Kevmo
Physics Professor Comes Out of Closet Admits LENR is For Real
A physicist with Torontos York University has come out of the closet and admitted that cold fusion energy is real.
Dr. Stoyan Sarg and one of his books courtesy BBS Radio
The tests of E-cat HT reactors of Andrea Rossi provided in Uppsala University, Sweden (2012-2013) and the live test of Defkalion (DGT) Hyperion reactor broadcast on July 22-23, 2013 are reliable demonstrations that cold fusion energy is real, Dr. Stoyan Sarg wrote in an article for a website called Foreign Policy Journal. Please note that Foreign Policy Journal has nothing to do with the respected journal Foreign Policy.
Sarg is not an amateur instead hes an engineer and a physicist. In the past Sarg worked with the European Space Agency, Intercosmos a Warsaw Pact space research organization associated with the former Soviet Union and the Canadian Space Agency. Sarg has also been a visiting scientist at Cornell University and he worked with the first SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project.
Sarg also outlines what might be a test for verification of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) in his article. He thinks that a test to check for radioactive isotopes before and after such a reaction could verify it. Sarg believes the isotopes decay and produces beta particles, he thinks testing for beta particles could verify LENR claims.
Interestingly enough Sarg criticized Andrea Rossi for not allowing such tests although he thinks Rossi and his ecat are credible. Francessco Celani has stated that Rossi has prevented him from making such tests.
Sarg thinks that Defkalions device is more credible because the company can control nuclear reactions with a high voltage discharge. Sarg doesnt comment on other LENR efforts such as the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, Brillouin, Francesco Piantellis efforts and Jet Energys NANOR.
Still he makes an important point in conclusion thats well worth repeating here. Our expectations for cheaper and safer nuclear energy are realistic. Like many observers Sarg thinks that more research into LENR is needed.
The Cold Fusion/LENR Ping List
Can this be economically be expropriated by the public?
The question is, how ought we to be spending our money?
Asked & answered
lol... Who spreads their legs 1st...The money will take care of itself...*W*
Yes, there will be many who spread their legs for this, and the first among them will be the skeptopathic brigade.
————— firstname.lastname@example.org/msg87557.html -————————
A Google of his name indicates that he's also an expert on UFO propulsion, LOL!
They tinker with this stuff but cannot explain the physics of it.
How can you have the gall to repeatedly post this crap on FR?
That Prof Sarg is a UFO conspiracy theory quack, if not the best known Canadian UFO quack.
I mean, you’ve been posting this crap on FR for what, 3 years? Why are you not banned? Did you invest in this ponzi sham? Are you getting paid to create url crosslink traffic for SEO results by the scammers?
Oh look, a liberal who wants to exterminate what he doesn’t agree with. What a surprise.
Why don’t you unpin your thought police badge and sit on it.
And wipe your mouth - you’re frothing again.
Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature, compared with temperatures in the millions of degrees that is required for hot fusion. It was proposed to explain reports of anomalously high energy generation under certain specific laboratory conditions. It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because there is no accepted theoretical model of cold fusion.
Cold fusion gained attention after reports in 1989 by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, then one of the worlds leading electrochemists, that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat (excess heat), of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium. The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.
The reported results received wide media attention, and raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy. Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes fell with the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.
By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead, and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.
In 1989, a review panel organized by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive enough to start a special program, but was sympathetic toward modest support for experiments within the present funding system.
A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first. Support within the then-present funding system did not occur.
A small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion, now often preferring the designation low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Some have reported that under certain conditions they observe excess heat effects by interaction of hydrogen or deuterium with palladium, nickel or platinum. Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in peer reviewed scientific journals, the results do not receive as much scrutiny as more mainstream topics. .......
Cold Fusion Claims Resurface
by Benjamin Radford
Hopes about cold fusion have been raised once again by two Italian researcher who claim to have fused atomic nuclei at room temperature.
Cold fusion has been a holy grail of physics for decades. If it could be achieved, it would be a cheap, clean, and limitless energy source.
According to a column at Physorg.com:
Italian scientists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna announced that they developed a cold fusion device capable of producing 12,400 W of heat power with an input of just 400 W. Last Friday, the scientists held a private invitation press conference in Bologna, attended by about 50 people, where they demonstrated what they claim is a nickel-hydrogen fusion reactor. Further, the scientists say that the reactor is well beyond the research phase; they plan to start shipping commercial devices within the next three months and start mass production by the end of 2011.
If this all sounds fishy to you, it should.
This is of course not the first time that scientists have made such a claim. On March 23, 1989, two chemists at the University of Utah, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, announced that they had discovered a technique for creating cold fusion using deuterium.
That was surprising enough, but they also claimed to have done it with inexpensive equipment that could be found in most high school chemistry classes. It caused a big stir in the media and in science circles, but months and years passed without the promised cold fusion.
Physics professor Robert Park, in his book Voodoo Science (Oxford University Press, 2000), notes: One reason Pons and Fleischmann had to be wrong was because the number of neutrinos they claimed to see was at least a million times too small to account for the energy they reported.
Furthermore, there were early indications that something wasnt right about the researchers experiments. For one thing, the byproducts of deuterium fusion include neutron, tritium and gamma rays. In fact, their experiment would have produced lethal doses of nuclear radiation on a scale that approached Russias Chernobyl reactor. It didnt.
The University of Utah, embarrassed by the whole affair, announced in 1998 that they would let Pons and Fleischmanns cold fusion patent lapse. The researchers remain adamant that their research was valid, though no one has been able to reproduce their findings.
The Italian scientists, like Pons and Fleischmann, skipped the typical route of publishing their study and results in a peer-reviewed science journal, instead taking it directly to the press and public. This is a strong sign of pseudoscience, and smacks of a mistake, if not an outright hoax.
In many ways cold fusion is similar to perpetual motion machines. The principles defy the laws of physics, but that doesnt stop people from periodically claiming to have invented or discovered one.
Field Propulsion by Control of Gravity by Stoyan Sarg, Ph.D. explains a new theory of propulsion in an effort to explain the reported movements of unidentified aircraft
TORONTO (MMD Newswire) January 28, 2010 Field Propulsion by Control of Gravity: Theory and Experiments by Stoyan Sarg, Ph.D. seeks to explain the science behind a propulsion system that would be consistent with the movements and appearance often attributed to UFOs.
According to Sarg, the nature of UFO phenomena is still considered a mystery because the observed and registered physical effects are not explainable from the point of view of modern physics. Citing overwhelming evidence, Sarg contends that the scientific community should reconsider previously held assumptions about gravity and propulsion as related to flight. With that in mind, Sarg presents a theory called Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory, which predicts an effect called stimulated anomalous reaction to gravity. It is based on a process that invokes quantum mechanical interactions between oscillating ion-electron pairs and the space-time continuum. According to Sarg, the effect could lead to development of a new propulsion system for a spacecraft. ....
Which is a failure of the theorists. Scientific validity does NOT rest on theory.....it rests SOLELY on replicated experiments. The idea the disagreement with current theory invalidates experimental data is pseudoscience.
There are a large number of prominent scientists who have sometimes expounded on/believed in things outside their area of expertise. A prominent scientist at IBM thought "crystal energy" was real.
But those opinions are a wholly different topic from areas that are in their field of technical competence.
As for the rest of your blather... I suggest you study up. LENR is real, proven by replicated experiment.
LOL. The reported particles were neutrons, not neutrinos. So much for your "expert". He/she doesn't even know the experimental evidence well enough to get even that detail right.
“Scientific validity does NOT rest on theory.....it rests SOLELY on replicated experiments. “ - WW
Now, how many independent labs have replicated the results of the eCat?
What is the exact configuration of the eCat device? (a link to the set-up procedures will suffice.)
AFAIK, there has been exactly zero independent eCat testing, and the construction of the device is still held in secret. (and all of the claims to produce and sell devices are over a year past due.)
Please show the eCat independent verification, if it exists. (otherwise the eCat is not a valid standard bearer for LENR)
Still no neutrons
Michael Salamon, 2009.
In a last ditch effort to validate the cold fusion results, fellow University of Utah professor Michael Salamon was allowed into Pons lab to conduct experiments searching for neutrons coming from Pons and Fleischmanns own fusion cells. If any experiment could be sure to replicate the conditions of the original, this would be it. During his five-week long test, Salamon was unable to detect any neutrons.
Pons tried to cast doubt on these results by claiming that the cells were not producing excess heat (and hence, that fusion was not going on) during those five weeks, except during a two-hour period that happened to coincide with a power outage. However, one of Salamons instruments was still able to collect data on neutrons during the outage. Not surprisingly, no spike in neutrons was observed. Pons even went so far as to attempt to censure Salamons data by threatening legal action if Salamon did not voluntarily retract his report. Such attempts to control information are a severe violation of scientific ethics and present an obstacle to scientific progress.
Despite all the evidence against them conflict with established theory, problems with the original experiments, multiple failed replication attempts, and even tests suggesting that the original experiments had produced no fusion Pons and Fleischmann refused to adjust their hypothesis about fusion occurring in palladium and, in this way, broke with standards for good scientific behavior. Though scientists are expected to be open-minded about new ideas, when multiple lines of evidence accumulate against them, even the most intriguing hypotheses must be abandoned.
Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10,000 times the energy density of gas
Sebastian Anthony on May 21, 2013
Against all probability, a device that purports to use cold fusion to generate vast amounts of power has been verified by a panel of independent scientists. The research paper, which hasnt yet undergone peer review, seems to confirm both the existence of cold fusion, and its potency: The cold fusion device being tested has roughly 10,000 times the energy density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline. Even allowing for a massively conservative margin of error, the scientists say that the cold fusion device they tested is 10 times more powerful than gasoline which is currently the best fuel readily available to mankind.
The device being tested, which is called the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat for short), was created by Andrea Rossi. Rossi has been claiming for the past two years that he had finally cracked cold fusion, but much to the chagrin of the scientific community he hasnt allowed anyone to independently analyze the device until now. While it sounds like the scientists had a fairly free rein while testing the E-Cat, we should stress that they still dont know exactly whats going on inside the sealed steel cylinder reactor. Still, the seven scientists, all from good European universities, obviously felt confident enough with their findings to publish the research paper.
LNER (cold fusion) hydrogen/nickel latticeAs for whats happening inside the cold fusion reactor, Andrea Rossi and his colleague Sergio Focardi have previously said their device works by infusing hydrogen into nickel, transmuting the nickel into copper and releasing a large amount of heat. While Rossi hasnt provided much in the way of details hes a very secretive man, it seems we can infer some knowledge from NASAs own research into cold fusion. Basically, hydrogen ions (single protons) are sucked into a nickel lattice (pictured right); the nickels electrons are forced into the hydrogen to produce neutrons; the nickel nuclei absorb these neutrons; the neutrons are stripped of their electrons to become protons; and thus the nickel goes up in atomic number from 28 to 29, becoming copper.
This process, like the conventional fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium, produces a lot of heat. (See: 500MW from half a gram of hydrogen: The hunt for fusion power heats up.) The main difference, though, is that the cold fusion process (also known as LENR, or low energy nuclear reaction) produces very slow moving neutrons which dont create ionizing radiation or radioactive waste. Real fusion, on the other hand, produces fast neutrons that decimate everything in their path. In short, LENR is fairly safe safe enough that NASA dreams of one day putting a cold fusion reactor in every home, car, and plane. Nickel and hydrogen, incidentally, are much cheaper and cleaner fuels than gasoline.
As far as we can tell, the main barrier to cold fusion as with normal fusion is producing more energy than you put in. In NASAs tests, it takes a lot more energy to fuse the nickel and hydrogen than is produced by the reaction. Rossi, it would seem, has discovered a secret sauce that significantly reduces the amount of energy required to start the reaction. As for what the secret sauce is, no one knows in the research paper, the independent scientists simply refer to it as unknown additives. All told, the E-Cat seems to have a power density of 4.4×105 W/kg, and an energy density of 5.1×107 Wh/kg.
If Rossi and Focardis cold fusion technology turns out to be real if the E-Cat really has 10,000 times the energy density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline then the world will change, very, very quickly. Stay tuned; well let you know when or if the E-Cat passes peer review.
From a site I just now came across...
A library of papers about cold fusion
This site features a library of papers on LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, also known as Cold Fusion. (CANR, Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions is another term for this phenomenon.) The library includes more than 1,000 original scientific papers reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers. The papers are linked to a bibliography of over 3,500 journal papers, news articles and books about LENR.
Until I see evidence of an E-cat powering a home hot water heater, stove/range, refrigerator, HVAC, etc. it’s all a religious hoax.
Valid points all.....for the ECat.
But this isn't "all about the E-Cat", though that device is referred to in the article. This is about the validity of LENR as a real physical phenomenon.
LENR does not stand or fall with Rossi. There are literally dozens (and perhaps hundreds) of experimental verifications of Pons and Fleischmann's work, and many more newer and alternative approaches, in particular, the "gas-loaded" approach, both using nickel w. H1 and palladium with D, that have shown excess heat, in many instances, huge quantities which simply cannot be attributed to energy storage or chemical reaction.
Garbage. You (and the writer you quote) are guilty of selective memory (and selective quotation).
1) P & F indeed conflicts with theory.
2) There were also successful replications from that same time frame (Bockris, production of tritium). Even the supposedly failed MIT experiment was later found on examination of the raw data to have shown excess heat (and thus also proved to be the first and only proven case of fraud on the topic of LENR).
3) P & F never claimed that what they saw was "fusion". That as a figment of the university's public relations department. P & F maintained that an unknown process, probably nuclear, had produced large quanties of energy...more than could be accounted for by chemical means.
P & F got the neutron measurements wrong, BUT THEY GOT THE CALORIMETRY RIGHT. On the other hand, the various physics sorts, using an unfamiliar tool (calorimetry), largely failed.
I suggest you go into that archive, and find the excerpts from George Beaudette’s book “Excess Heat”. I think you will find that your position is not supported by the totality of the published data.
The eCat has all the signs of a scam.
LENR has all the signs of poorly/newly understood physical phenomenon. (new science)
As a result - all eCat centric LENR articles are tainted. eCat cannot be the standard bearer for LENR science, because the ‘inventors’ are not following the proper scientific processes to validate their findings.
Proponents of Science rightly treat eCat as something other than Science.
(Just because LENR is real does not mean that the eCat is not a scam.)
And it has many signs that it is not.
"As a result - all eCat centric LENR articles are tainted."
There is a difference between "ECAT-centric", and "happens to mention E-Cat". The skeptopaths treat the latter as the former almost exclusively on these threads.
"eCat cannot be the standard bearer for LENR science, because the inventors are not following the proper scientific processes to validate their findings."
Quite true. But they "are" behaving as people who have a valuable innovation and want to make money on it. Which is perfectly legitimate.
"Proponents of Science rightly treat eCat as something other than Science."
And I think if you check back on ALL these threads, neither Kevmo nor I have ever said anything else. But the skeptopaths are selling the idea that all LENR is a scam.
See post 11 for a typical example.
"(Just because LENR is real does not mean that the eCat is not a scam.)"
And the converse is also true. Which is why the only legitimate conclusion that can be drawn about the E-Cat at this time is "insufficient data".
If this stuff really works and an E Cat could power an entire house or car what will happen to the oil,natural gas, coal, nuclear etc industries? It will be either smeared out of existence or somehow kept from general public use.
OK - I accept your thoughts. (except that Rossi is acting a rational businessman with an invention.)
I would counter that if eCat was indeed a functioning LENR device, then why would he not actually be generating electricity with it already?
Why would he miss every deadline for device production (that he set for himself)?
Let us just say that Rossi is "eccentric". Whatever he may be, it is obvious that Rossi has a genius-level intellect. I've never known a genius level scientist who wasn't "odd" in one area or another. He is being rational by "his" standards.
"I would counter that if eCat was indeed a functioning LENR device, then why would he not actually be generating electricity with it already?"
Because everything takes more time and costs more than one estimates. Personal example....my company has worked as a subcontractor on a biowarfare detection device...the tech is complete, has finished all testing, beaten out all the competition, and WILL be produced....but it has taken eight years. And is not "out-the-door" yet. Of course, this involved the government, so all the sequester hoopla has delayed things.
And our tech is well-understood compared to Rossi's.
"Why would he miss every deadline for device production (that he set for himself)?
See above. There are ALWAYS delays, most often having little or nothing to do with the validity of the technology.
Same thing that happened to the horse-drawn wagon and buggy makers.
And the possibility of keeping it off the market is nil. There are too many countries who need the tech to upgrade the standard of living of their citizens.
Once it is confirmed that a working device is real, there will be a swarm of researchers in working on "a better mousetrap".
I am extremely skeptical of Rossi - which you may disagree with but seem to understand.
LENR as a valid topic for excellent Science, totally different story. I believe we are on exactly the same page.
I don't think any sane person can be anything BUT skeptical about Rossi. BUT....there are a lot of other people with spotless reputations and excellent science credentials that have been involved with testing his "stuff". I am not about to totally ignore their work and write it off based solely on Rossi's past history. Rossi will go into history as either a great inventor, or a great scam artist. Either way, it is worth keeping track of.
As I said....."insufficient data". Time will tell.
"LENR as a valid topic for excellent Science, totally different story. I believe we are on exactly the same page.
Correct. And exactly my position since the first one of these threads. On that subject, there is no longer any room for doubt. LENR is real. EVERY aspect of it has been verified (largely aneutronic, large quantities of heat, transmutations, tritium production, energy and mass balance between "reactants" and "products" (He4...but only for the Pd/D system)), by organizations and researchers of excellent "pedigree".
Well, we wouldn’t want a google of moonman62 post to be removed, would we?
I mean, youve been posting this crap on FR for what, 3 years? Why are you not banned?
***The science behind LENR is real. The Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated more than 14,000 times, and multi$Billion companies are engaging in research. Why is it we can’t get any of these skeptopaths to discuss the science?
This is a strong sign of pseudoscience, and smacks of a mistake, if not an outright hoax.
***asked & answered
In many ways cold fusion is similar to perpetual motion machines.
***The effect has been replicated more than 14,000 times. That no longer smacks of a mistake nor a hoax.
Yuh huh, and Shockley, after inventing the transistor, went on to prove that blacks are genetically inferior human beings or somesuch baloney. Does that disprove his results in electricity?
AFAIK, there has been exactly zero independent eCat testing,
and the construction of the device is still held in secret.
***That’s because it is an industrial device, not necessarily a scientific one. Industry is ahead of science. Kinda like when the Wright brothers were flying circles around Huffman Prairie while the best scientific minds of the time were declaring it to be impossible.
Well, it looks like you’re trying to come up to speed.
asked & answered
I actually don’t have much of an opinion one way or the other, or even knowledge of the subject, myself. I was just throwing out the basic arguments against it which I found on the internet. Two of the items I posted I think was supportive of it.
What I do know, though, is that throughout the history of science, in every area of it, there is a long list of skeptics who have been proven wrong.
Yes, that is correct. So I’m focusing on pushing my retirement accounts into a position where Big Oil is shorted, Stirling cycle engines are in, desalination is in, and other ways to put my money where my mouth is. I’m not quite sure how to do it.
In addition, Rossi did not want to subject the ECat to demos nor attention. He simply wanted to start selling them when the time was right. But his partner Focardi had cancer, and Focardi wanted recognition for all that he had done. So, Rossi relented and gave the crappiest set of demos one could imagine. Here we are 2 years later, Focardi dead from cancer, and Rossi going back to being rather cryptic and acting as eccentric as he wants.
But there’s been some significant blinking dots on the dashboard with Rossi. One, he submitted the ECat to black-box testing and it was found to have 20,000 times more energy density than gasoline. Two, after having sold his house to fund his efforts, he now has been buying real estate in Florida (and threatening to sue Wikipedia for libel). This is after claiming that he’s no longer CEO but rather CFO of his enterprise, so it would appear he’s got some money coming in already, at least he’s acting in that fashion. Three, he announced that one of his factories was able to generate an excess heat device without him ever being involved with the process, only by way of his instructions. The last time LENR was this close to a breakout was with Patterson, who died and never let his secret out so it died with him.
Rossi will go into history as either a great inventor, or a great scam artist. Either way, it is worth keeping track of.
***Exactly what I’ve been saying. I haven’t posted a “Rossi Says” article in over 2 years, but one wouldn’t have known it based upon how many times the skeptopaths bring up Rossi in order to discredit any efforts in LENR.
If you don’t want to spend money on a good introductory book “Excess Heat” by Beaudette, then there are a lot of good intro sources to download for free (including excerpts from Beaudette’s book) at
And, of course, you could read up on where things are just by cruising the “cold fusion” keyword on FR
The troll rebuttal is the same thing as being called a denier in the AGW argument.
Well, if you want to display your ignorance like a peacock and pretend it to be a virtue, you’re welcome to proceed.