May 6, 2011

To the Editor:

I have read much on Rossi's work. And I have read just as much on so-called scientists who dispute its validity. I have realized in reading about those people who denigrate Rossi's claim that precious few have bothered to personally investigate the claims. But they seem to have plenty to say about it as a fraud. A true scientist would say nothing until the claims are proven true or false by people with sufficient credentials to justify a conclusion. Furthermore, I would think a claimed discovery of such importance as Rossi's would energize the scientific community into direct observation and evaluation.

The scientists at the University of Bologna and the Swedish science community are to be congratulated for their response to Rossi's work. In addition, others who have recommended refinement of the evaluation are also to be congratulated. Their work is in the true spirit of science. Let us be sure that rigorous testing has been conducted. And, when sufficient testing is confirmed, if Rossi's claims hold true, let us rejoice and move on to see whether we can figure out why they have occurred and what other elements might be used to achieve as good or better results.

Too bad current science is so dependent on grubbing for funding and the fear that funding will dry up if something more advantageous is discovered. I fear that this is at the heart of those yelling fraud. When they do not investigate the claims themselves or help shape the evaluation, the real frauds are those claiming fraud. If the number of these fraudsters is sufficient, they hold back the advancement of the kind of science that civilization desperately needs. So I add, to those claiming fraud, put up or shut up. You're not doing us any favors.

Richard M. Wilson
Jacksonville, FL USA

May 6, 2011

To the Editor:

Thanks very much for posting this video [RAI TV 24] - lots of good information. One is tempted to get excited by the positive evidence that has been reported about the invention of Andrea Rossi, but there are also reasons to remain cautious and skeptical.

On the front page of New Energy Times is the following statement: “Science is our foundation. You won’t find sales pitches to invest in the latest free energy devices, and we will not bother you with research that circumvents the rigor of the scientific process.” I completely agree, and this ethos is what makes New Energy Times worth reading.

But consider that, when Andrea Rossi was informed that Peter Hagelstein of MIT was interested in testing and validating the discovery, Rossi replied, “[T]he validation will be made by the customers. … That is the sole real validation that counts for us. Also, if the plants work, customers will pay us; if not, they will not pay us. … We are not searching for any validation. We never did. We just wanted to make a good product. We have already made our public presentations; no more of them will be made. … If MIT is interested to our product, they can buy a plant and make all the validations they want.”

In this quote, Rossi makes no pretense of making science the foundation, and he chooses to prioritize the sales pitch.

Consider that Sergio Focardi in the above video states, “We added a secret additive, whose formula is confidential, to the system formed by hydrogen and nickel. I do not know this additive. I have never asked anything about it, and I do not want to know anything about it.”

Here, too, this approach seems uncharacteristic of a scientist pursuing “the rigor of the scientific process.” Focardi may be a distinguished scientist, but with regard to Rossi’s discovery, he appears to have assumed a different role than scientist.

This certainly does not personally denigrate Rossi or Focardi, their professionalism or character. Nor does it in any way disprove the validity of their work. But the approach that has been taken raises caution (in my mind at least) not to wholeheartedly believe the claims before a proper scientific investigation has been carried out, before there is an open protocol, peer review, and independent experimental replication.

I hope that New Energy Times holds true to its pledge that “we will not bother you with research that circumvents the rigor of the scientific process” in its reporting of this important discovery.

Armand Tuzel
Chicago, IL

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

Dear Dr. Tuzel,

Thank you for raising these important questions and concerns.

The scientific process (or method) is distinct from the protocols of scientific communication etiquette, and it is also distinct from the process of determining scientific validity.

For example, one protocol of scientific communication etiquette dictates that a claimant either publish in a journal or present at a scientific conference. The purpose is to bring the claims to a wide spectrum of the scientific community and thus facilitate a broader evaluation and test of the claims.

A second protocol dictates that the claimant provide for the capacity for qualified independent researchers to replicate the claims by openly publishing all required details.

A third protocol dictates that the claimant welcome all qualified independent researchers into the claimant's lab should they want to make inspections.

Rossi appears not to have followed these protocols. I will come back to this in a moment.

To his credit, Rossi has, however, selectively invited independent researchers (Giuseppe Levi, Hanno Essén and Sven Kullander) into his laboratory to inspect his work.

The scientific process comprises these specific steps:

- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
(Source: sciencebuddies.org)

But your concerns are not actually about the scientific process. You are referring to the process of determining scientific validity, which includes the following confirmations:
- An effect is directly correlated to a cause
- The magnitude of an effect is clearly distinguishable from background
- The effect is independent of the observer
(There may be others.)

The final consideration, effect is independent of the observer, seems to be the focus of your concerns.

In isolation, the Rossi claim fails this criterion of scientific validity. But the Rossi work does not exist in a vacuum. It is preceded by the specifically related Ni-H gas work of Piantelli-Focardi and by the generally related Ni-H work by George Miley, Francesco Celani, Tadahiko Mizuno, James Patterson, and Randell Mills.

You also expressed concern about Rossi's choice not to openly accept requests for validation from other scientists. His caution is well-placed. Scientists are not always, as my colleague Charles Beaudette wrote, "pure as the driven snow." My best example is this investigation: Sonofusion Research Scuttled: Putterman and Suslick's Response to Taleyarkhan's Discovery and Other Science Misdeeds.

As you mention, Rossi has declined the request from a direct competitor, Peter Hagelstein of MIT, to inspect or evaluate his device. Hagelstein faces significant potential losses, among them the shame of losing a 22-year battle for his belief in DD "cold fusion," if Rossi's work is confirmed either by the scientific community or by consumers.

Also, Hagelstein made a public mockery of light-hydrogen research at the ICCF-14 conference in 2008.

"My current understanding of the reaction scheme," Hagelstein said, "is [that] I'm not sure what comes in, I'm not sure what goes out, I don't know how much energy is made and I don't know how it works. Other than that ..."

The rest of the audio recording is inaudible because it was drowned out by the audience's laughter in response to Hagelstein's comment.

As Hagelstein's comment at the conference indicates, he doesn't know about light-hydrogen LENR experiments and he is thus underqualified to evaluate such systems.

I do not fault Rossi for his caution or his process, and I give him credit for carving out his own path and for choosing his scientific colleagues.

I appreciate your writing about your concerns. They have allowed us to discuss an important matter and recognize crucial distinctions among the scientific process (or method), scientific communication etiquette and scientific validation.

Thank you,

Steven B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times

May 1, 2011

To the Editor:

I'm from Bologna, Italy, and I graduated from the local university's Department of Physics in the early 1990s. Professor Sergio Focardi was in charge of the academic courses in those years.

I've never been involved in any research or study about actual physics. I'm an owner of a small company involved in the development of sophisticated software for industrial automation.

I've been closely following all the news about the Andrea Rossi and Focardi experiments and news. Some of my old teachers were involved as spectators or commenters.

On your Web site, I've found extensive information about the Allan Widom-Lewis Larsen theory of a possible chain of reactions explaining excess heat from some metal lattices interacting with hydrogen.

The Rossi and Focardi experiments are said to be the first real thing in low-energy nuclear reactions because of evident heat production. The skeptics say that it seems too good to be true, but the lack of a theory leaves too many questions unanswered.

After I read about the Widom-Larsen theory, I thought the contrary: The theory is here and now, and finally we seem to have the result.

The theory existed before Rossi’s successful results, though not with respect to the Francesco Piantelli studies. I just do not understand why no evident results, such as the kW of produced heat, like those of Rossi’s E-Cat, seem to be reported in the U.S. by Lattice Energy or some of the other groups involved in LENR activities, like SPAWAR and JWK.

On the other hand, I do not think that Rossi and Focardi can deny the knowledge of this possible Widom-Larsen theory. It is very convenient because it does not require new physics and explains the lack of neutrons and gamma radiation. Applying for a patent with some reference to a possible physical explanation could be useful.

What is your opinion about this strange inversion of things?

I've not the proficiency in physics to judge the Larsen equations and diagrams, so I'm asking you, Do you think we have the theory?

I thank you in advance for your attention, and please accept my best regards.

Domenico Pozzetti
Bologna, Italy

[Ed: Thank you for your interesting letter. I do not know why Lattice Energy, if it understands the Rossi experiment, does not advertise its abilities to demonstrate such a device. Perhaps public attention is not the company’s current strategy. As far as why other groups have no similar evident results, my guess is that they just don't have the knowledge. Or perhaps they lack the interest; patents and prizes are not awarded for coming in second place. This article, "Amber's Answer to the Question of Reproducibility," may shed some light.

Certainly the Widom-Larsen theory could be beneficial to the Rossi and Focardi work; however, Lattice Energy has a U.S. patent that could create a conflict between the parties.

As to your question about the viability of the Widom-Larsen theory, I cannot accurately give a simple "yes" or "no." My most complete answer is published in Krivit, S.B., "Cold Fusion - Precursor to Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions," Elsevier Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources. I will be pleased to send you a copy on request.]