Archive for the ‘Scientific Fraud’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Bengü Sezen – A “Master of Fraud” at Columbia University

August 2, 2011

The case of fraud by Bengü Sezen a chemist at Columbia University goes back many years and was a scandal in 2007 and briefly reported back in December 2010 by Retraction Watch.

Bengu Sezen

Further details have now emerged from the Office of Research Integrity and are put together by Chemical and Engineering News which  “show a massive and sustained effort by Sezen over the course of more than a decade to dope experiments, manipulate and falsify NMR and elemental analysis research data, and create fictitious people and organizations to vouch for the reproducibility of her results.”

A Master of Fraud (MFr) and it strikes me that she could probably have achieved great things if she had spent half as much creativity in real research as she did in duping her peers. Fraud by correction fluid in the age of photo-shopping seems particularly ingenious!!

Dalibor Sames: image njacs.org

No doubt there are extenuating circumstances but for this deception to have continued for a decade does not do any credit to her supervisor Prof. Dalibor Sames. Whether Sames has been subjected to any sanctions by the University is not clear. His role has been the subject of many posts and one “inside story” is available here.

The total number of papers retracted by Sames seems to be eight with Sezen involved in 6 of them.

C & EN carries the story:

Bizarre new details of the Bengü Sezen/Columbia University chemistry research fraud case are revealed in two lengthy reports obtained by C&EN this week from the Department of Health & Human Services. The documents—an investigative report from Columbia and HHS’s subsequent oversight findings—show a massive and sustained effort by Sezen over the course of more than a decade to dope experiments, manipulate and falsify NMR and elemental analysis research data, and create fictitious people and organizations to vouch for the reproducibility of her results. Sezen was found guilty of 21 counts of research misconduct by the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which is housed at HHS, in late 2010 (C&EN, Dec. 6, 2010, page 10). A notice in the Nov. 29, 2010, Federal Register states that Sezen falsified, fabricated, and plagiarized research data in three papers and in her doctoral thesis. Some six papers that Sezen had coauthored with Columbia chemistry professor Dalibor Sames have been withdrawn by Sames because Sezen’s results could not be replicated. The ORI findings back Columbia’s own investigation.

The Sezen case began in 2000 when the young graduate student arrived in the Columbia chemistry department. “By 2002, concerns about the reproducibility of Respondent’s [Sezen’s] research were raised both by members of the [redacted] and by scientists outside” Columbia, according to the documents, obtained by C&EN through a Freedom of Information Act request. The redacted portions of the documents are meant to protect the identities of people who spoke to the misconduct investigators.

By the time Sezen received a Ph.D. degree in chemistry in 2005, under the supervision of Sames, her fraudulent activity had reached a crescendo, according to the reports. Specifically, the reports detail how Sezen logged into NMR spectrometry equipment under the name of at least one former Sames group member, then merged NMR data and used correction fluid to create fake spectra showing her desired reaction products.

The documents paint a picture of Sezen as a master of deception, a woman very much at ease with manipulating colleagues and supervisors alike to hide her fraudulent activity; a practiced liar who would defend the integrity of her research results in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Columbia has moved to revoke her Ph.D. …… 

…… After leaving Columbia, Sezen went on to receive another Ph.D. in molecular biology at Germany’s Heidelberg University. At some point during the Columbia investigation, however, Sezen vanished, though some reports place her at Turkey’s Yeditepe University. Her legacy of betrayal, observers say, remains one of the worst cases of scientific fraud ever to happen in the chemistry community.

See also

Julia Wang’s – The Sames and Sezen case, 2007

Chemical Villain of 2006: Dalibor Sames 

The Sezen Files – Part II: Unraveling the Fabrication

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Corruption, Ethics, Science, Scientific Fraud, scientific misconduct | 4 Comments »

Marc Hauser to resume at Harvard

July 12, 2011

Marc Hauser of Hausergate fame was found guilty of 8 instances of scientific misconduct and was sent on a “years leave” as his reward. His failings were connected with his research and but he had  (has) the reputation of being a good teacher.

Of course since he has tenure (based it would seem on rather dodgy results) it seems he cannot be fired.  The Harvard President made a vague suggestion last year that scientific misconduct could even lead to loss of tenure. An opinion piece in the Harvard Crimson called for his sacking earlier this year. In fact it may well be that getting tenure was one of the reasons that he apparently just made up some of his results. But now the Harvard Magazine reports that he will be returning to Harvard this fall after his year long sabbatical but will not be allowed to teach.

Presumably he will be continuing with his “research”!

It might have been more appropriate to rescind his tenure, put him on probation and bar him from any unsupervised research.

PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY Marc Hauser will be returning to Harvard this fall—but not to teaching. At a psychology department meeting this spring, “a large majority” of the faculty voted against allowing him to teach courses in the coming academic year, according to Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) spokesman Jeff Neal.

Hauser, who studies animal cognition as a window into the evolution of the human mind, has been on a yearlong leave of absence after a faculty investigating committee found him “solely responsible” for eight instances of scientific misconduct. The University has never said whether Hauser’s leave was related to the questions about his research.

Related articles

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Ethics, Science, Scientific Fraud, scientific misconduct | 1 Comment »

Plagiarist with a recently rescinded PhD appointed EU Commissioner for Research

July 5, 2011

The number of German politicians who have plagiarised for their doctorates grows. After zu Guttenberg, the story of Sylvana Koch-Mehrin and Jorgo Chatzimarkakis is building up into another dirty little tale.

EU politicians are less than impressive. The level of corruption and scams along with the level of arrogance of the EU politicians in Brussels is almost legendary. From my experiences I am fairly certain that the level of political corruption in Europe is significantly higher than for example in India – but far more sophisticated and difficult to find.

The distinct impression is of pigs feeding in a trough.

Pigs feeding from the EU trough

From Professor Debora Weber-Wulff’s blog:

Sylvana Koch-Mehrin had her doctorate rescinded by the University of Heidelberg for containing over 30% plagiarism in May 2011, and now in June she has been named EU commissioner for research, Spiegel Online reports.

This means that she is in the committee that determines research policy for the EU. She had been an alternate for the committee, her fellow FDP politician, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (his dissertation is currently at 71% plagiarism, but he is contesting the plans of the University in Bonn to rescind his doctorate as well) had the main seat. They have now changed places.

What does this say about research in Germany? What message does this give to the general populace about the importance of research? Plagiarists determining research policy? If today was April 1 I would have considered this an April Fool’s joke, but it is unfortunately true.

Poor Germany, all of your good researchers do not deserve this.

Update: A petition has been started requesting that she step down immediately.  It is online in English, German, and French. If you feel so inclined, please sign. There are already almost 2000 signatures – on day 1 of the petition.

I just signed this petition and I am signer #8325.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Corruption, European Union, Germany, Politics, Scientific Fraud | Comments Off on Plagiarist with a recently rescinded PhD appointed EU Commissioner for Research

Nature editorial chastises IPCC for conflict of interest policy

June 30, 2011

The Nature editorial  published today will be unwelcome criticism for the IPCC from a normally very friendly quarter. “Shot with its own gun” is the headline and the editorial chastises Pachauri and the IPCC for failing “to make clear when this new conflict-of-interest policy will come into effect and whom it will cover. It needs to do so — and fast”.

Allowing Greenpeace to ‘dictate’ the IPCC’s renewable-energy report was particularly inept and as one Nature reader puts it “The IPCC has become a Centre of Criticism”. But the fundamental problem with the IPCC is of course that it has become an advocacy group with a pre-determined agenda where scientific evidence has been replaced by dubious results from scenarios. Claiming that model results of a chaotic and imperfectly understood system are “settled science” is the travesty.

But criticism coming from Nature is friendly fire indeed.

Nature 474, 541 (30 June 2011) doi:10.1038/474541a

Shot with its own gun

In the past two years, the IPCC has displayed a talent for manoeuvring itself into embarrassing situations, making itself an easy target for critics and climate sceptics.

The problems began in late 2009, when it was reported that the IPCC’s fourth assessment report, published two years earlier, mistakenly claimed that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. The subsequent fallout seriously damaged the IPCC’s credibility, and was exacerbated by the inept attempts of the group’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, to contain the crisis. A subsequent review of the organization’s governance and policies saw it commit to a number of wide-ranging reforms.

This month, the IPCC is in the crosshairs again. The revelation that a Greenpeace energy analyst helped to write a key chapter in the IPCC’s Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, released last month, sparked widespread criticism across the blogosphere. Compared with the glacier faux pas, the latest incident is trivial. But it should remind the IPCC that its recently reworked policies and procedures need to be implemented, visibly and quickly.

In response to the glacier blunder, the IPCC pledged greater caution in the processes it uses to select scientific experts and to evaluate grey literature, and to make sure that (unpaid) work for the panel does not clash with interests arising from the professional affiliations of its staff and contributing authors (see Nature473, 261; 2011). But it has failed to make clear when this new conflict-of-interest policy will come into effect and whom it will cover. It needs to do so — and fast. 

This is the only way that the organization can counter recurring claims that it is less policy-neutral than its mandate from the United Nations obliges it to be. In particular, it needs to make clear the position for the working groups on climate-change impacts and adaptation (the science group adopted a rigid conflict-of-interest policy last year). Pachauri is on record as saying that the new conflict-of-interest policy will not apply retrospectively to the hundreds of authors already selected for the IPCC’s fifth assessment report, due in 2014. This is unacceptable. He should make it a priority to ensure that the rules cover everyone involved — including himself. …

The IPCC’s vulnerability to such attacks should also prompt it to reconsider how it frames its findings. Journalists and critics alike gravitate towards extreme claims. So when the IPCC’s press material for the May report prominently pushed the idea that renewables could provide “close to 80%” of the world’s energy needs by 2050, it was no surprise that it was this figure that made headlines — and made waves. The IPCC would have saved itself a lot of trouble and some unwarranted criticism had it made the origins of this scenario explicit.

Now with the natural death of the Kyoto Protocol and with a few decades of cooling in front of us it is time for the IPCC to be disbanded.

Related articles

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Climate, Science, Scientific Fraud | Comments Off on Nature editorial chastises IPCC for conflict of interest policy

Penn State whitewash of Michael Mann exposed

March 9, 2011

Two things which were were always pretty clear have now been proven.

  1. Michael Mann of the Hockey Stick Illusion and the cherry picking of data did indeed ask his friends and colleagues to delete incriminating emails, and
  2. The so-called Penn State inquiry into Mann and his actions cherry picked the evidence to give a pre-determined result.

A federal government inspector general has revealed prima facie proof that the so-called independent inquiries widely if implausibly described as clearing the ClimateGate principals of wrongdoing were, in fact, whitewashes. This has been confirmed to Senate offices. It will not be released to the public for some time because the investigation is ongoing.

The document, an interview transcript, will put an end to the foolish talk of anything resembling a ClimateGate “inquiry” having taken place. It will also invite a real inquiry into the affair. Expect fireworks, as the one such effort, by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is being fought hysterically by Big Science and Big Academia.

Critically, it also begs questions of Penn State University, which conducted one of the three supposed inquiries into ClimateGate. The key point is that the Penn State investigators never interviewed a principal who was able to confirm or deny a key charge against “Hockey Stick” lead author of “Hide the Decline” infamy Michael Mann. This individual has now been interviewed, and what he told federal investigators has indicted Mann and Penn State. The inspector general’s report specifically reveals Penn State’s wagon-circlers to have been at best comically negligent/inept in allowing Mann to not answer the damning charge they were tasked with examining: did he delete or ask others to delete records? At worst, they were complicit in the cover-up.

Simply by interviewing Mann’s colleague Eugene Wahl, PSU would have exposed Mann’s “answer” for what it was (and wasn’t). Such an interview was obviously necessary for any inquiry. Penn State chose not to conduct it, for its own reasons. A federal inspector general has now conducted it. And the result is damning of both Mann and the parties that chose not to interview Wahl.

As background, Phil Jones in the United Kingdom asked Mann, now at Penn State, by email to delete records being sought under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act, and to get a colleague to do so as well:

Mike:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment — minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

“Gene” is Eugene Wahl, who now works for the federal government.

Mann’s terse reply included in pertinent part:

I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP

Now, from Penn State’s supposed inquiry and exoneration of Michael Mann:

Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.

If the above excerpt accurately reflects Mann’s testimony, both Mann’s “answer” and his peers’ acceptance of it ought to raise red flags. Penn State asked Mann and only Mann if he destroyed records or was indirectly involved in destroying records. Mann said only that he did not destroy records. And that did it. Even though Phil Jones asked Mann to instruct Wahl to do so as well.

Related:

To serve Mann

Wahl Transcript Excerpt


Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Scientific Fraud | 1 Comment »

2010 was coldest year in Sweden in 23 years and coldest in Norway since 1941

March 8, 2011

The 2010 winter cold can be coupled to the NAO and to large blocking high pressure areas: image smhi

My actual experiences during 2010 (in Asia and in Northern Europe) and my very real electricity bills are far more compelling than fudged statistics and Hockey Stick Illusions from the global warming alarmists. The reality is that we are in for 2 or 3 decades of cooling courtesy of the sun and man-made carbon dioxide is of little consequence. The sun drives the ocean currents and the North Atlantic Oscillation was negative as it was for the 2009/10 winter.

The global warming / carbon dioxide scare is driven not only by carbon trading scams and catastrophe promoting insurance companies but also by so-called climate scientists who have lost the scepticism that is at the heart of science and developed a Nostradamus complex.

From Stockholm News:

Most people who live in Sweden most certainly remember some really cold months last year, particularly the winter months of January, February and December. There was for certain a serious heat wave in July. But that did not help out: 2010 was the coldest year in Sweden in 23 years.

The Swedish Weather Agency’s preliminary estimations show that Sweden as a whole had around one degree Celsius below normal temperatures last year.

Since 1987, all years have been warmer than normal, except in 1996, which had a small temperature deficit. “Normal” in this context is the average for the years 1961-1990.

The coldest part of the country was in the west, and consequently the western neighbouring country of Norway also had a cold last year. Their general temperature was likewise one degree Celsius below normal. This made last year the coldest in Norway since 1941 and the tenth coldest year since 1900, writes the Norwegian Meteorological Institute.


Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Climate, Scientific Fraud, Sweden, Weather | Comments Off on 2010 was coldest year in Sweden in 23 years and coldest in Norway since 1941

Peer review becomes incestuous when it comes to Global Warming

February 17, 2011

The Climategate emails revealed the extent to which the global warming establishment were prepared to go to pervert and doctor the peer review process to inhibit the publication of any papers challenging global warming orthodoxy.

Fraser Nelsonthe editor of the Spectator relates the story in his blog of how a critique of faults in a paper written by one of the establishment (Eric Steig) was sent to the criticised Steig himself for peer review!! He writes:

Debunking the Antarctica myths

In January 2009, Nature magazine ran the a cover story (pictured) conveying dramatic news about Antarctica: that most of it had warmed significantly over the last half-century. For years, the data from this frozen continent – with 90 percent of the world’s ice mass – had stubbornly refused to corroborate the global warming narrative. So the study, led by Eric Steig of the University of Washington, was treated as a bit of a scoop. It reverberated around the world. Gavin Schmidt, from the RealClimate blog, declared that Antarctica had silenced the sceptics. Mission, it seemed, was accomplished: Antarctica was no longer an embarrassment to the global warming narrative.

He spoke too soon. The indefatigable Steve McIntyre started to scrutinise his followings along with Nicholas Lewis. They found several flaws: Steig et al had used too few data sequences to speak for an entire continent, and had processed the data in a very questionable way. But when they wanted to correct him, in another journal, they quickly ran into an inconvenient truth about global warming: the high priests do not like refutation. To have their critique (pdf) of Steig’s work published, they needed to assuage the many demands of an anonymous ‘Reviewer A’ – whom they later found out to be Steig himself.

Lewis and Matt Ridley have joined forces to tell the story in the cover issue of this week’s Spectator.

It’s another powerful, and depressing tale of the woeful state of climate science. Real science welcomes refutation: with global warming, it is treated as a religion.

As they say in their cover story:

“Nature’s original peer-review process had let through an obviously flawed paper, and no professional climate scientist then disputed  it – perhaps because of fear that doing so might harm their careers. As the title of Richard Bean’s new play – The Heretic – at the Royal Court hints, young scientists going into climate studies these days are a bit like young theologians in Elizabethan England. They quickly learn that funding and promotion dries up if you express heterodox views, or doubt the scripture. The scripture, in this case, being the assembled reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. …… So has Antarctica been warming? Mostly not – at least not measurably. Retreat of the floating Antarctic ice shelves is a favourite story for the media. But, except in a very few peripheral parts, Antarctica is far too cold to lose ice by surface melting.”

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Antarctic, Scientific Fraud | Comments Off on Peer review becomes incestuous when it comes to Global Warming

Carbon dioxide rip-off has cost Australia $5.5 billion – so far

February 14, 2011

With easy money like this floating around and waiting to be siphoned off it is not difficult to see why the global warming fraud continues! And of course these $5.5 billion are small change compared to the amounts that have been scammed in Europe.

And to make it worse, carbon dioxide emissions are a little less than insignificant for global temperatures.

The Sydney Morning Herald:

Billions blown on carbon schemes

SUCCESSIVE federal governments have spent more than $5.5 billion over the past decade on climate change programs that are delivering only small reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at unusually high costs for taxpayers and the economy.

An analysis by the Herald of government schemes designed to cut emissions by direct spending or regulatory intervention reveals they have cost an average of $168 for each tonne of carbon dioxide abated. ……

The analysis of 17 programs with a total cost of $5.62 billion shows many of the schemes are at odds with the goal of tackling climate change at the lowest cost to the economy. ………

The weighted average cost of the 17 programs was $168 a tonne. They will deliver about 25 million tonnes of carbon abatement in 2020 – less than 10 per cent of that needed to meet the government’s target of reducing emissions in 2020 by 5 per cent on 2000 levels.

The worst offenders have included Labor’s rebates for rooftop solar panels, which cost $300 or more for every tonne of carbon abated, and the Howard government’s remote renewable power generation scheme, which paid up to $340 for each tonne.

Read the article.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Alarmism, Australia, Climate, Environment, Scientific Fraud, Weather | Comments Off on Carbon dioxide rip-off has cost Australia $5.5 billion – so far

Sylvia Bulfone-Paus misconduct story stretches back to at least 1999

February 3, 2011

I have posted earlier about 12 retractions of papers concerning research done under the supervision of Sylvia Bulfone-Paus, a Director at the Research Center Borstel in Germany. Six of the retracted papers had been identified earlier and the next six are reported in Retraction Watch.

The retractions came after an investigation which confirmed the misconduct but put the blame squarely on two Russian researchers Dr. E. Bulanova and Dr. V. Budagian with comments that Bulfone-Paus bore responsibility as their supervisor but that she herself  had not committed any misconduct. The blogger / whistle blower represented by the Marco Berns / Martin Frost persona had commented that the singling out of Bulanova and Budagian was suspicious and hinted darkly at much earlier wrong-doings (and in fact had specifically mentioned the year 1999).

The latest 6 retracted papers  listed include one from 1999 giving some credence to the Martin Frost allegations:

Bulfone-Paus, S., Bulanova, E., Pohl, T, Budagian, V., Dürkop, H., Rückert, R., Kunzendorf, U., Paus, R., and Krause, H. Death deflected: IL-15 inhibits TNF-α-mediated apoptosis in fibroblasts  by TRAF2 recruitment to the IL-15Rα chain. FASEB J. 13:1575-1585 (1999, cited 118 times)

For this paper Bulfone-Paus was both first author and corresponding author. It would seem that any misconduct here cannot be passed off onto authors nos. 2 and 4.

After the investigation Martin Frost  wrote:

It was confirmed that the Institute Directors have been “snooping” on their workforce.  They have indeed viewed the log files of e-mails of the workers.  This deeply distressing news was compounded when it was revealed that the only person who the management arraigned after the Stasi-like “snooping” exercise was a member of der Betriebsrat (workers council) showing that the confidence essential for the worker – Betriebsrat relationship is now severely compromised.

The two other Directors are now discussing what to do next with Bulfone-Paus.

But as Retraction Watch describes, some damage control is being done by the institute with some assistance from the Editor of the EMBO Journal who includes the following sentence in his retraction notice:

The authors declare that key experiments presented in the majority of these figures were recently reproduced and that the results confirmed the experimental data and the conclusions drawn from them.

Why would the Journal publish a line so blatantly intended to white-wash some of the authors? Or does the editor mean that the retraction of the paper is somehow negated!

On this theme of the behaviour of Journals Martin Frost also wrote:

We have been sent the exchange of e-mails below from Dr. Karin Wiebauer.  They describe Dr. Wiebauer’s efforts to rid the scientific literature of the contamination of the mainpulated Bulfone-Paus papers. ….. One interpretation of the exchange is that the Editor-in-chief of the Journal of Immunology is stonewalling and attempting to bury the scientific miscconduct.

The sad saga goes on….


Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Ethics, Scientific Fraud, scientific misconduct | 1 Comment »

Cold Fusion: Another fraud or a breakthrough?

January 22, 2011

In March 1989, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann claimed to have achieved cold fusion at room temperature but their experiment could not be reproduced.

File:Igloo.jpg

Cold fusion lab (igloo) under construction : image wikipedia

While cold fusion is considered highly improbable, it is not impossible and there remains a nagging suspicion (hope?) that some “miracle”, perpetual machine may suddenly appear in the most unlikely place and perhaps even outside main-stream science.

Physorg reports on another claim this time from Bologna, Italy:

Despite the intense skepticism, a small community of scientists is still investigating near-room-temperature fusion reactions. The latest news occurred last week, when Italian scientists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna announced that they developed a cold fusiondevice 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.

Rossi and Focardi say that, when the atomic nuclei of nickel and hydrogen are fused in their reactor, the reaction produces copper and a large amount of energy. The reactor uses less than 1 gram of hydrogen and starts with about 1,000 W of electricity, which is reduced to 400 W after a few minutes. Every minute, the reaction can convert 292 grams of 20°C water into dry steam at about 101°C. Since raising the temperature of water by 80°C and converting it to steam requires about 12,400 W of power, the experiment provides a power gain of 12,400/400 = 31. As for costs, the scientists estimate that electricity can be generated at a cost of less than 1 cent/kWh, which is significantly less than coal or natural gas plants……….

…… Rossi and Focardi’s paper on the nuclear reactor has been rejected by peer-reviewed journals, but the scientists aren’t discouraged. They published their paper in the Journal of Nuclear Physics, an online journal founded and run by themselves, which is obviously cause for a great deal of skepticism. They say their paper was rejected because they lack a theory for how the reaction works. According to a press release in Google translate, the scientists say they cannot explain how the cold fusion is triggered, “but the presence of copper and the release of energy are witnesses.”

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html

But not everybody is dismissing this latest claim.

Steven Krivit of the New Energy Times describes why he believes that the Rossi and Focardi LENR device is probably real and is an advancement on the Piantelli process.

But there seems to be a vested interest here and I remain unconvinced.

Especially since they claim that they cannot fully explain what happens but are going to be producing “commercial units” anyway it sounds like a scam. They will probably sell some units to the gullible  before they disappear from view.

Just another fraud.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Fraud, Physics, Science, Scientific Fraud | 4 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »