Well, here we go again with the cold fusion story. Before I post the link, let's review the normal steps for the reporting of cold fusion, the "script" as it were, by which such claims are "handled" by the media and the scientific junta responding to such claims:
(1) a claim for cold fusion at less than the extraordinarily high temperatures of normal fusion (such as in stars) is made by off-the-reservation scientists (we'll call them "pseudo-scientists", the scientific magisterium's word for "infidel") working with relatively simple equipment, causing alchemical-like fusion transmutations of elements;
(2) a scientist or group of scientists representing the orthodox junta steps in and insists that the data or report is to be treated with skepticism because (insert reason here). Usually the reasons thus inserted run to (a) corrupted samples, (b) misinterpreted data, (c) incomplete reporting on data (note the variation on the theme), (d) falsification of data (note the subtle ad homimem implied) and my personal favorite (to be read in a German accent): (e) "such claims run counter to established theory and would overturn many of the assumptions underwriting it."
Now, with the script in mind, read the following article.
Here we have the typical "inventor-in-the-garage patents a wonderful new technology that will begin shipping out shortly to end the world's energy problems" story. In addition to this legitimate ground for skepticism, there is the fact that the scientists involved with this newest claim of cold fusion won't, in typical fashion, publish anything about their data or reactor. In this instance, the scientific orthodoxy junta's skepticism is well-represented by 9/11 nanothermite champion, Dr. Steven Jones, who, like me, is duly skeptical of the report.
It is in this case the emptiness of anything by way of hard data in this article that raises my "suspicion antennae", for why would an organization like physorg even bother reporting such a thing, unless it were only to reinforce the claim of "yet another cold fusion fraud" in the roll of of its own assertion at the begining of the article that since Pons and Fleischman's original announcement, "all other claims of cold fusion have been illegitimate, and studies have shown that cold fusion is theoretically implausible, causing mainstream science to become highly speculative of the field in general" (emphasis added).
But even this history of "alternative science" is an orthodox historical view imposed by an orthodox scientific junta, for as I detailed in The Nazi International, the very first claims for a kind of "cold fusion" were in fact made by Dr. Ronald Richter, working in Argentina, ostensibly for Juan Peron, in 1951(pp. 249-250). And, predictably, the script was followed closely, even back then in Richter's case, with Richter claiming he had found a new class of phenomena, and with an Argentine physicist (Dr. Jose Balseiro), providing objections all based in standard theory.
In the case of Richter, however, there was an additional script that was being followed closely, that of "public media denunciation" and secret US Air Force investigation, and even there, scientists could not make up their minds, but whatever one said of Richter, there was no middle ground in the US Air Force files: he was either a montebank, swindler, and fraud, or as one Atomic Energy Commission scientist put it, "a mad genius working in the 1970s."
And while we're at it, let's not forget Philo Farnsworth and his 1965 fusion claims in a device no larger than a softball, claims that were reported, then quickly shuffled aside into the corporate patent vaults of ITT, where they remain.
What interests me most is the historical claim made in the article itself, without any referencing historical data to back it up, that all such claims have been refuted. As the article states, Dr Jones demands more evidence on the data of the Italians' experiments, and rightly so. So too, I would like to know the detailed response to experiments outlines on pages 246-247 of Eugene Mallove's study of the cold fusion phenomenon and of the scientific establishment's reactions to it, as found in his 1991 book Fire From Ice. Or what about the Hitachi patents in Japan, JP 90,276, 989 or JP 90,276,990, or the private Japanese patent JP 90, 271, 288, and on and on we could go... Has Hitachi, or for that matter, the Japanese government, taken leave of their senses? Or has the scientific junta simply failed to investigate because the phenomenon does not fit a theory?
And let's not forget, Dr. Mallove was murdered on his own property. There were, and are, of course, any number of people maintaining that it was all a tragic accident and crime, of Dr. Mallove being at the wrong place at the wrong time. But I, for one, do not buy that explanation for a minute.
Whether or not the Italian scientists are reporting something legitimate, or whether it is just another story of the garage inventor with plans for a device to solve the world's energy problems is, from the standpoint of the wider history and implications of the whole phenomenon itself, a moot point. I remain skeptical of the claims, but I am equally skeptical of the scientific junta's skepticism.