239) A dangerous cold fusion identity theft ?

Ludwik Kowalski (7/4/15)
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043

Tonight I sent the following e-mail message to about 100 members of the cold fusion community:

I was one of those to whom a message received yesterday was sent. A reader wrote: “I've tried to retrieve [without success] patents given on the iESiUSA web site:

<http://www.iesiusa.com/intellectual.html>

. . . Was anybody successful in retrieving any of the patents given on that website?” Replying to this another reader wrote: “iESi is in ‘stealth mode’ at the moment and not taking any inquiries . . . I have some, very limited, contact with them at the moment, though they are not giving me any answers at this time.”

It is clear that researchers from the iESiUSA company are not using scientific methodology of convincing. Secrecy might be consistent with trade but not with true science, except in military research. To the best of my knowledge, cold fusion community is guided by rules of scientific methodology. That is why I think that we should disassociate ourselves from iESi claims. They say that their excess energy comes from cold fusion but refuse to justify this to our satisfaction. If we do not criticize them openly people will associate us with unpleasant consequences of making probably-not-valid commercial stock market claims. I feel that somebody is stilling our identity. How can we protect our reputation for honesty and hard work? Please write to me what you think about the iESiUSA claims. I would be happy to summarize your points of view on my CF website:

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/

And I would be glad to protect anonymity of those who ask for it. It is a serious matter; we are in a dangerous situation. Am I the only one who feels that way?
Ludwik Kowalski
P.S.
Items #216 and #226, #229, etc., on my website, are connected with iESiUSA claims, and with related patents.

The space below is reserved to replies. Anonymous senders will be identified by X. I will wait for at some messages before posting this unit. Then I will update it from time to time by appending additional messages, or comments about messages. Replies will be numbered to simplify referencing.

Appended on 7/13/05:

1) X wrote: Since there is no public discussion I don't feel it is necessary to start one. As far as I know they have approached the CF community (Hagelstein, Fleischmann, Krivitt). We could accept their way of operating, since this is indeed a very slippery terrain.

2) X wrote: It stinks; people promising great commercial benefits to investors should first demonstrate the setup.

3) X wrote: It seems to be a game with iESi shares at the highly speculative Canadian stock market.

4) Scott Little wrote: In my experience a significant fraction of the folks involved in CF research don't follow ordinary scientific methodologies. It does hurt the overall credibility of the field but that's pretty well shot anyway by now. I suggest you just distance yourself from those guys whenever the subject comes up. But don't go out of your way and make a big deal out of it. That would actually draw unwanted attention to them. If they've got something that works, we'll all find out about it soon enough. Meanwhile, if they don't want to play scientists, there's nothing we can do about it. (BTW, judging from their stupid website, I'd guess they're all smoke and mirrors).

Even we have not bothered to publish any papers describing our work. Basically we're looking for a successful commercial venture and, when the experiments don't show excess heat, we don't bother writing them up. However, I am planning to write a paper describing our new flow calorimeter and submit it to Review of Scientific Instruments. I hope such a publication would attract some people to submit their cells to me for evaluation. (1406 Old Wagon Road, Austin TX 78746).

5) Ludwik Kowalski wrote: Senders of messages will be identified, unless the first sentence is a request for anonymity.

Appended on 7/14/05:

6) John Coviello wrote: Given the history of alternative energy, which is littered with exaggerated claims and broken promises, iESiUSA's claims of a revolutionary energy technology based on a creative use of the cold fusion reaction must be greeted with deep skepticism by cold fusion proponents (as much as we'd all like to see it work). Cold Fusion proponents do not want to be associated with iESiUSA if they are ultimately proven to be a fraud; it would be a setback for the field of cold fusion. Therefore, until more concrete scientific evidence is provided to prove their technology works as described, iESiUSA's claims must be treated with a healthy skeptical approach.

It is troubling that iESiUSA is taking the path of secrecy and limited demonstrations. These are hallmarks of fraudulent technology schemes of past decades. However, since a revolutionary energy technology that would replace the current fossil fuel energy regime would be literally worth Trillions of dollars, it is somewhat understandable that a company, such as iESiUSA, would want to keep their technology secret until they are ready to go commercial with it. It is encouraging that they have invited credible scientists to review their technology, even if they aren't revealing all that they need to reveal at the moment to prove it beyond a doubt. I guess it is best to treat iESiUSA as just another alternative energy company making an unproven claim, until they give us reason to think otherwise. I would be in the camp that advises ignoring them until more substantial evidence or a commercial product is provided by the company. There is no harm in ignoring them, but there would be harm in endorsing them prematurely only to find out later that they are frauds.

7) Jed Rothwell wrote: Do not worry about iESi. Every year, dozens of strange secretive groups pop up claiming they are doing cold fusion. This has been happening since 1989, but it has not hurt the reputations of actual CF researchers. You are correct when you say iESi is doing business-style R&D, not academic science. The people at iESi would agree with you. I doubt that any substantial progress in CF can result from secretive research, because I think not enough is known about the basic physics yet, and we are still at the stage when fully open, traditional academic science is called for. Perhaps I am wrong about that . . . we shall see.

The iESi claims may actually be real. It is impossible to judge today, but we might find out 9 months from now, when the secrecy period for the latest patents expires. Some of the people who have visited iESi have been impressed, although not so impressed they are willing to say with certainty that the effect is real. Obviously that will have to wait for independent replications.

8) X wrote: I was not aware that cold fusion community had many recognized intruders who did not use scientific ways of validation. Are the episodes of criticizing them recorded somewhere? Books about cold fusion focus on its conflicts with mainstream science; they do not mention, as far as know, conflicts within the CF community. That is why one is inclined to think that the iESi episode had no precedents.

9) Dennis Cravens wrote: I know that others have said iESi has claimed cold fusion events, but I never saw anywhere where iESi have made such claims.  (for example I have seen allegations by Clem that iESi claims cold fusion, but nothing from iESi about it). I do see where iESi has said Yang has worked on cold fusion systems.  I do not see where they have claimed that they are making excess with a cold fusion system. Having been in this game a long time I know that there is often a big difference between what is said about you and what you say.  I see all kinds of comment about iESi from you but I have yet to see any link to iESI where suchCF claims are made. Perhaps they have made such claims, it is just I see not primary evidence that they have.  I see all kinds of patents about H generation and such but nothing to the CF point.
 
  I will wait for evidence before I judge them.  Right now it just looks like rumors and talk about them from others. I have asked both iESi and those who have visited the lab.  I get no information. Perhaps they say nothing now because they are still working and verifying and do not what to misslead anyone.  I think it is best to just wait for a report by them and ignore the rumors by others.  If it is real it will eventually come to light. Even the so called visit reports are not posted by those that visited the site but by those that have not.  If it is just talk by others who do not know what is going on - it will pass.

Appended on 7/16/05):

X wrote: I hope to see a proper scientific presentation of aspects of the work in an appropriate forum in the near future.

Ludwik Kowalski wrote: No scientific ways of validation of hard to accept claims has been offered. That is why I agree with those who suspect fraud. Another reason for being suspicious is based on putting myself in a position of an inventor who, without understanding basic science, was lucky to invent and build a highly desirable, and not very complicated, device.I am thinking about an invention similar to that of Volta or Roentgen. How would I proceed to benefit from the invention? Suppose that several million dollars have already been gathered from inventors; as posted on the iESi website. Being absolutely certain that my claim is valid I would sell one or two devices to a reputable firm; such firm would certainly not hesitate buying a device if a very strong “money back” guarantee was offered. The guarantee would state that “the device will work as described for at least one year.” Immediately after that I would apply for a patent. An application based on the working model would certainly be granted. Then I would start looking for new investors. Such strategy would work much better than promises on the iESi website.

I do understand why an inventor might want to keep things secret before being protected by a patent. If I were a “quantum scientist”, as Yang and Cho are said to be, I would probably start thinking about Nobel Prize, the ultimate scientific recognition. This would motivate me to write a paper, perhaps in cooperation with a more qualified scientist. The paper would be submitted to a reputable journal, such as Physical Review. Knowing about working models (and possibly given a chance to communicate with independent users, reviewers would be convinced that experimental data are not based on “wishful thinking” only. Perhaps such work is in progress. But seeing no evidence I prefer to remain skeptical. Yes, seeing “a proper scientific presentation” would be very helpful. But nothing would be more convincing than lasting financial success, based on well performing devices.

P.S.

iESiUSA is not the only company promising to deliver very attractive clean energy devices without telling us how they are supposed to work. For more information go to this website:

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1357

You may also click on the ”published” link there to see how little the company has to say about the product that is said to be nearly ready for commercialization. I see no attempts to validate the too-good-to-believe claims. Being a physics teacher I am highly dissatisfied.