Non-Polluting energy source

<Splutter>

Sorry, but my thesis was on Cold Fusion and I know the story well enough that it qualifies, in my opinion, as a classic case of "pathological science" as coined by Irving Langmuir.

You can go over the citations ad nausium, but it still is only wishful thinking.

The book seems to be written by an out of work auto salesman. There is much to much talk about the world's energy problems and how we need a new renewable source of energy to survive. None of that proves Cold Fusion is real and is a diversion from the subject designed to emotionally move the reader to an unrelated point. It is a fallacy of false cause.

The only things more captivating than pop culture are conspiracy theories. It is another fallacy of argument when there is not enough solid evidence for a proof that the argument turns to claim that conspiracies are preventing the truth from being told.

Sadly, there is more than enough solid evidence that proves Cold Fusion is not real. Wanting something to be true does not make it so.

If you want to invest in something a bit more tangible, look into something called the Polywell. This is real research into a new approach to fusion that actually holds some promise for a breakthrough.

http://emc2fusion.org/

Those are my thoughts. I am sorry they do not support yours, but you asked.

g a 2 u

Excellent answer and very interesting debate.

Anonymous Hero wrote:

"'. . .Cold fusion is often very easy to detect. For example, it has produced hundreds of watts of excess heat with no input power, and 10E8 atoms of tritium.The word is "causative" agent and no input power implies it."

This comment makes no sense. The causative agent of cold fusion is well understood. The control parameters for the reaction have been described in dozens of papers and demonstrated in thousands of experiments. Input power is not needed once the palladium deuteride is formed.

"Experiments were not repeatable and results varied all over the map."

That is incorrect. The replication rate varies from around 60% with some techniques, to 100% for the techniques used by Mitsubishi and Toyota. (That experiment costs ~$20 million so it has not been widely replicated.)

In any case, replication rates have never been taken as a measure of the reality of an effect for any other phenomenon. The replication rate for cloning is less than 0.1%; many the large scale Tokamak plasma fusion reactions have only been done once, because they render the equipment radioactive; and the "top quark" has never been replicated outside of FermiLab. No one suggests that cloning does not exist because it is much harder to replicate than cold fusion.

"'Cold fusion is an experimental finding, not theoretical. Experiments do not need to be supported by theory to be true.'

Ah! But the scientific method does!"

No it does not. There is no theory to explain high temperature superconducting but no one doubts it exists. Before 1930 no one could explain why the sun shines, and before the discovery of DNA in 1952 no only had any idea how cells replicate, but no one doubted that they did.

"I can't be specific here, but nobody has produced a testable and repeatable theory to the physics involved. When asked for the theory, none can be produced that hold water."

Theory is irrelevant, as I said. There are many testable experiments. For more on the role of theory, see:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJcoldfusiona.pdf

Quote from that paper: "It should not be necessary, however, to understand the mechanism before embracing the concept. If a proven track record can be established . . . you have to believe it." Note that Schwinger was a leading theorist.

"When the initial fanfare hit the "fan", there were a lot of supporters."

Incorrect. There was tremendous opposition, lasting to this day.

"However, the claims could not be backed up."

By 1991, over 100 major labs reported replications. Subsequently these reports were were amplified and many more labs observed the effect. That is how a claim is "backed up." There is no other method.

"If you are suggesting a renaissance in Cold Fusion, show me the data!"

There is no renaissance, but there is also no "consensus" (general agreement). The scientific community is sharply divided, as shown by the DoE review, by a public opinion poll of scientists and engineers in Japan, and by the readership at LENR-CANR. I do not know of any other evidence, but the fact that scientists have downloaded nearly a million papers must mean something. These papers are very boring to read, and nobody downloads them for fun.

"I think it is reasonable to call Cold Fusion pathological science because the means that it was conducted and the claims made could not be supported."

The claims WERE supported. You can say they were not as many times as you like, but facts are facts, and anyone who reads the peer-reviewed literature in a university library will see that you are wrong. Furthermore, as I said, Langmuir's definition of "pathological science" does not even begin to fit. Perhaps you have invented a new definition, but none of his criteria apply.

"Pons and Fleischmann failed to report the claims in a scholarly paper, refused to share the data and the techniques used for the experiment."

That is nonsense. They shared data with ME, and with hundreds of others. They distributed working cathodes to dozens of labs, such as China Lake.

"When that data and the experimental process was finally made public, the results were not independently verifiable and reproducible, which was a major blow to the claim."

Look, the results were independently replicated, by China Lake, Los Alamos and hundreds of others. They published papers. Anyone can read these papers in a library or at LENR-CANR.org. You can deny that and deny that, but anyone can see that you are wrong. What are you trying to prove, when you deny matters of fact that anyone can check at a library?

"Pons and Fleischmann could not support their theories . . ."

They have no theories! They are experimentalists, not theorists.

". . . and never were able to answer "where are the neutrons?"

Such questions are for a theorist to answer, not an experimentalist.

"Instead, "ad hock" theories surfaced that never were publicly accepted as science."

Ad hock theories have no bearing on experiments, and they do not detract from them. Experiments NEVER need to be justified with theory. It always works the other around.

"At that point Pons and Fleischmann cited that "they" weren't doing it "right", but were unable to explain what "right" was."

Of course they were. Statements like this reveal that you have not read the literature. I spent a several days at Fleischmann's house and believe me, he kept me busy learning the whole time and he still knows tons more than I do.

"Sure, Cold Fusion had its true believers and still does today, but it has never been able to stand up to peer review as real."

Why do you say the peer review at J. Electroanal. Chem., Fusion Sci. & Technol., Naturwissenschaften and Jap. J. Applied Physics is not "real"? In what sense is it not real? Cold fusion results have been published roughly 50 "real" peer-reviewed journals, including some of the best in the world. Who the heck are you to say these journals are substandard?

"What is your definition for peer-reviewed journals? Show me the peer review in "Nature", which is a scholarly journal."

Nature is highly prejudiced against cold fusion. You will have to live with papers in other journals. I do not think you can make the case that Nature is automatically in every case superior to J. Electroanal. Chem. There are many scientific controversies, and in some of them Nature has been wrong and other journals have been right.

"Lastly, unless you can explain the process by which an experiment works, you can't lay claim to it being Cold Fusion."

Of course we can. It fuses deuterium and produces helium and heat. That makes it fusion, by definition.

"The reader is left to assume that the writer is proposing that Cold Fusion is that answer to those issues."

Of course I am proposing that! I made it abundantly clear.

"Although it is not a direct claim, it does have merit as an implied claim."

It is a direct claim!

"Further, your claims to my initial post support the idea that you believe Cold Fusion is real and have spent a lot of time challenging my claims that it is pathological science."

Well of course I believe it is real! I have read hundreds of papers and seen many experiments. The experimental evidence is overwhelming. Anyone who does not believe it is real has not done his homework. You do not believe it is real, but I do not think you can find a single error in any major paper, and there are hundreds of major papers. No skeptic has ever found a significant technical error. They blather on about "consensus" and about how "Nature" is better than Jap. J. Applied Physics, but they can't explain why the x-ray film turns black, can they? They pretend it doesn't.

"I hope you recognize that my statement about the auto salesman was not a personal attack. My point was that the "pitch" being made was not founded in a logical argument and lacked the relation between the reason and conclusion."

The link between cold fusion and the energy crisis is quite logical and clear to the researchers, and to the Navy and to companies such as Mitsubishi which have invested millions of dollars in the research. They would not be doing that if they did not think cold fusion may become a practical source of energy. I have visited their labs and spent countless hours discussing this with them, and I assure you they think it may be possible to make cold fusion practical. They don't know that for sure, and neither do I, and I never said I did. You surely don't know as much as they do, and you are no position to second guess them.

"So, I agree that the world has energy problems and a grand solution would be a huge benefit. However, Cold Fusion is not scientifically sound, lacks the scientific consensus to be accepted, and has, to date, been un-provable in the ream of physics."

Why do you claim that mass spectrometers and x-ray film do not prove what they prove? The calorimeter used at Shell Oil for their cold fusion research was developed in 1780 by Lavoisier. Do you think it doesn't work? It doesn't prove anything? It is out of the realm of physics?

To prove that cold fusion does not work, you must first reject the laws of thermodynamics, and then prove that instruments and textbook techniques going back to the 18th century do not work. You have to show that the whole basis of chemistry and physics is bogus. Good luck on that!

"While I would not relegate the "science" of Cold Fusion to the same level of UFOs, it is not a long distance call between them, either."

You are unknowingly relegating the laws of thermodynamics to the level of UFOs. You are saying that world class experts in tritium cannot measure tritium at a million times background, and that roughly 2,000 professional scientists have made astounding errors for 20 years, and published a thousand peer-reviewed papers, but nobody noticed -- peer-review failed to catch the mistakes. You are saying, in short, that science does not work. You are wrong.

- Jed Rothwell

Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

You wrote:

"I think there is a disconnect when it comes to understanding the scientific method and its importance to scientific advancement."

You think that people like Julian Schwinger and Martin Fleischmann do not understand the scientific method?!?

"I just don't have time (nor the interest) to research the subject further."

With all due respect, I doubt that you have read any technical papers on the subject. I think you should refrain from trying to determine whether it is real or not until you read the literature.

"If there was real merit to the idea of Cold Fusion it would be the subject of journals like Nature and would be front page scientific news. It is not."

Again, why do you assume that Nature is right and Jap. J. Applied Physics is wrong?

"Warning flags go off for me when claims that Los Alamos have conducted experiments, yet I can find no evidence to support that claim."

You have not looked very hard. Storms, Claytor, Menlove and others published papers at Los Alamos. They are in the LENR-CANR library, and also at the Georgia Tech and Los Alamos library, which is where I got the copies I uploaded.

"To infer that Los Alamos is actively or has in the past been working on Cold Fusion is misleading and assigns a false sense of authenticity."

This is incorrect.

"Toyota (actually Japan's government), if memory serves, abandoned research in 1997 or so after five years of work. Obviously, they did not see anything worth pursuing."

There were two projects. Toyota was shut down because of political pressure from Japanese skeptics who know nothing about the research. (They told me they have read nothing, and it is readily apparent. Note that I speak Japanese, so I can follow events there in some detail.) The government project was poorly managed and was making no progress. I would have shut it down myself.

"The 2004 DOE panel findings did not recommend funding Cold Fusion. Yes, they did comment that well structured studies that requested individual fundings would receive review on a case-by-case basis, but the overwhelming feeling was that there was nothing significant to warrant a government program."

The opinions of the panel are sharply divided. I suggest you read the individual opinions, in our 2004 DoE Review section. Some members recommended funding and others did not. They did not all concur with the decision. (They told me.)

"Cold Fusion has three serious strikes against it. 1. There are no (or insignificant amounts) of nuclear by-products such as neutrons. 2. There are no known underlying theories that can explain the nuclear process that is alleged to be happening. . . ."

These are theoretical issues that have no bearing on calorimetry, mass spectroscopy or x-ray film. Theory can NEVER disprove replicated experiments. Never.

"3. Experiments have in the past and continue to produce inconsistent results."

First, this is incorrect. Experiments were much more consistent than, say, transistors in 1950, or cloning is today. Second, as I said, this has never been held as a standard to disprove ANY experiment in the past. No one today claims that cloning does not exist because results are ~100 times less consistent than cold fusion. That would be absurd. You have invented this standard and applied it to cold fusion only, and ignored all other claims throughout history.

"You can not simply reject a properly designed and executed experiment that does not yield desired results as a failure for unknown reasons. You have to understand why."

YOU are rejecting thousands of properly designed and executed experiments that produce high sigma proof that cold fusion exists!

"I agree that experimentation is a valid thing to do. However, you can not make claim to fusion when it can not be proved as such nor can anyone present a mechanism or pathway for the physics behind it."

A pathway is not needed. The fact that it is fusion is self evident, since it converts deuterium into helium and produces heat at the same ratio to the helium as plasma fusion does. What else could it be?

"Additionally, somehow there needs to be a mainstream theory that can hold up to peer review in scholarly journals before we can dub this as a room temperature fusion."

Would you also claim there must be a theory before anyone accepts that high temperature superconducting is what it appears to be, or do you accept the Meissner effect as proof?

"Maybe you or someone will make a breakthrough some day."

I am a librarian, not a researcher. It will take hundreds of millions of dollars to make a breakthrough, and as long as people like you publish statements like this, I think it is unlikely that the political opposition will end. I think you should take care not to judge a scientific question without first carefully reading the literature, and I think you should respect standards such a peer-review.

"When it makes it to Nature I will stand up and take notice."

Again, why Nature? Why do you think the journals it has been published in are not valid? Do you have a reason for elevating Nature to the be-all, end-all arbiter of truth? In other academic disputes, do you assume that Nature is inevitably right? I suggest you read this letter from a Nature editor. If you do not find several astounding errors, you are not paying attention:

http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/Lindley.jpg

- Jed Rothwell

Librarian -- not researcher.

"You think that people like Julian Schwinger and Martin Fleischmann do not understand the scientific method?!?"

Obviously Fleischmann didn't as record shows from 1989.

What is meant by sharply divided DOE panelists? 18 or so dismissed it, 5 said maybe, and one was convinced. That's not 50-50 nor is sharply divided.

"I think it is unlikely that the political opposition will end." Conspiracy?

"Again, why Nature?" That's is easy. They are pretty much the tip of the spear for scholarly journals. If Cold Fusion is what is claimed, that is the one place you can get the most respect. So, why not Nature?

I think what you referring to as the editor's response from Nature had more to do with the sloppy documentation provided by Pons and Fleischmann, the release in a non-scholarly magazine, their unorthodox prerelease announcement, and the subsequent errors in following the established rules for disclosure for peer review. Whether on purpose or accident, they cooked their goose with how they managed this from the start and it did impact their ability to get any credibility in the field. Even so, other scientists made good faith efforts to duplicate what Pons and Fleischmann did with either mixed results or no results at all.

Look, arguing this is pointless. If you want to change minds, then bring something tangible to the table. 20 years later and the promise of cars without gas and homes with their own power generators never appeared. You don't need theory to do that, as you said.

For that matter, we don't even have a Mr. Cold Fusion coffee pot or mug warmer. Nobody has produced anything commercial from the "invention". It simply remains a talking point to which two sides can argue ad infinitum over what is real and pretense, like a philosophical debate.

Any way, thanks for the link. I'll read it later tonight if I can. I just have a very busy week here, but I appreciate you taking the time to respond. You are an intelligent and well spoken guy and even though we differ on opinions, I enjoyed the conversations.

I guess that leaves hot fusion or even fission.

Hi jed

Bother to register & you may have some credibility here.

Just because something works doesn't make it a good idea

Bricktop, V1sor & Stinky Pete have it right.

Is the juice worth the squeeze?

$300 mil for barely detectable results? Not a practical solution.

Garthh wrote:

"$300 mil for barely detectable results? Not a practical solution."

The effect is easily detectable now, but it cannot be controlled. For ~$300 million, the NRL people believe they could make the reaction fully controllable. This would make it practical. That is to say, it could be used to power anything from a watch battery to gigawatt electric generator. Cold fusion is easily scaled, and various small thermoelectric and larger heat engines are available.

Of course it would cost a great deal more to redesign automobiles and other machines to use cold fusion. $300 million is needed to solve the materials problem and make the reaction work every time at optimum power density and temperature. As I mentioned, commercially useful power density and temperatures were achieved years ago. Cathodes the size of a paperclip have produced ~100 W and boiled water in a reflux cell continuously for months. If such devices can be mass produced they will easily supply all of the energy we need, in all sectors.

- Jed Rothwell

Jed-

You're saying that a $300M grant would fund all the research needed to fully develop the technology to a viable, controlable state? How much after that to build a pilot plant (say 15 MW)? What are the long term environmental concerns associated with large-scale cathode production?

Guest wrote:

"You're saying that a $300M grant would fund all the research needed to fully develop the technology to a viable, controllable state?"

That's what NRL experts told me a couple of months ago. $300 to $600 million, based on similar projects they have done, especially the Aegis solid-state radar. I am going to ask them for more details soon.

As I recall, many years ago Fleischmann told me he thought it would cost roughly $1 billion to get to that point. He has a great deal of experience with large-scale industrial electrochemical R&D, so he should know.

I myself have no experience with such large scale R&D programs, so I can't judge. On the other hand, I can well imagine why it would take $300 million. I have seen many cold fusion experiments. Lab equipment costs a fortune! Every time you turn around the researchers need another kind of mass spectrometer or cathode fabrication gadget. I had no idea there were so many different kinds of mass spectrometers, for bulk, surface, elements, isotopes, destructive, non-destructive . . . you name it. They usually end up dissolving the sample, like the Terminator. As one researcher put it, "what we do to these cathodes would make the angels weep."

It is best to use different instrument types on the same sample to confirm the analysis. You can farm out the analysis for thousands of bucks a pop.

"How much after that to build a pilot plant (say 15 MW)?"

No idea. I don't know enough about generators to judge.

I note, however, that cold fusion is good for producing relatively mild temperatures, of ~250 deg C. This is good for low-cost, long-lasting generators. You trade off Carnot efficiency for lower equipment cost. Fission generators are operated at that temperature. Combustion generators are much hotter, because flame is hotter to start with, and to improve Carnot efficiency.

"What are the long term environmental concerns associated with large-scale cathode production?"

That's a complicated question. At present, about half of the world supply of Pd is used in catalytic converters which are similar in many ways to cold fusion devices. They are thin film, surface-effect catalysts that operate at high temperatures. Manufacturing them does not cause a problem. Unfortunately the converters themselves gradually sublimate much of the Pd and spew it into the air and soil, as heavy metal pollution. That will not happen with cold fusion cells. They are closed, like batteries. When batteries are recycled properly, they produce little pollution and most of the metal is recovered. Worn-out cold fusion cell metal can probably be recycled safely and efficiently. But, there may be a problem. There are some concerns that metal may be transmuted into dangerous materials, and the reaction does produce tritium.

I am assuming we will learn to operate cells without having them go out of control and explode. If we can't do that, all bets are off.

I am also hoping that Ti, Ni or HTSC materials be used instead of Pd, because there is probably is not enough Pd.

I doubt there will be any safety problems with electrolyte, which I expect will be D2 gas (not heavy water), with gas loading or ceramic HTSC proton conductors. There have been only a few experiments with proton conductors. They usually melt or disintegrate from the heat, or the thin-film anode peals off and loses contact. But when they work, input DC electric power is in micro-watts and output is heat in the watt range, and sometimes they get hot enough to melt the ceramic. The ratio is ~10,000 or more. When they work at all, they turn on instantly. That's ideal. It would cost millions to iron out the problems, but it sure is a sweet design. A member of the French Atomic Energy commission -- of all people -- did some good work on this technique, with Biberian. So did Mizuno and Oriani. I don't recall any others . . .

- Jed Rothwell

If I wanted to set up a presentation on this topic to a panel of private investors, whom would be the best candidate to present this information and how would I get in contact with them?

Someone (don't know who) wrote:

"If I wanted to set up a presentation on this topic to a panel of private investors, whom would be the best candidate to present this information and how would I get in contact with them?"

I suggest the panel attend the ICCF conference in Washington DC, in August. They can meet most of the surviving researchers. They are mostly 80-year-old who are too old to do research, but it is a good way to learn about the subject.

You can contact anyone still living and compos mentis through LENR-CANR.org. Most of the papers have e-mail addresses. If you can't find someone just ask me. Chances are, he's dead.

Actually, I know a couple of wealthy private investors who are sponsoring experiments in the U.S. I can put you in touch with them. Might as well pool your efforts. In my experience, experiments cost way more than you expected or planned, and they are more difficult than you imagined anything could be. For people used to dealing with computers: doing a cold fusion experiment is not like programming or assembling a computer from parts. It is like making your own computer from scratch, that is, making it from sand.

- Jed Rothwell

Why would you post someone's personal information like that?

I would assume that it wasn't with his permission (if so, why wouldn't Jed do it himself). That doesn't seem to be very professional.

There does appear to be some evidence to support the validity of cold fusion (or low energy nuclear reactions ~ LENR). But, will it be the "magic bullet" to solve all the problems suggested in the introduction (plan to read your book in the near future) to your book? I think the words "help" and "possible" might be included in the statement...especially if the reactions can be predictable, sustained, and supply significant Gibb;s free energy as some claim. Evidence appears to be lacking for some of the "cause and effect" statements in the introduction. However, I do appreciate you stirring up the issue to promote further research into LENR, and I look forward to reading your book.

Thanks, so much, for your comments.

Actually, I am not looking for support. I am not intending to defend a position.

The insights of many taken together are a type of wisdom that goes beyond the individual. I want to learn.

The book does not address any technical issues, but certainly the technical issues are important to this discussion. Please provide citations to recent research that supports any statement of tehcnical merit so we all can better understand.

With that, I will listen. Thanks.

V1sor wrote:

"The book does not address any technical issues, but certainly the technical issues are important to this discussion. Please provide citations to recent research that supports any statement of technical merit so we all can better understand."

Actually, chapters 1 and 2 do have a layman's introduction to the experiments, but the book is not intended to address technical issues. As stated in the first paragraph: ". . . please read original sources: the scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings. You will find a bibliography of over 3,500 papers at http://lenr-canr.org, along with a collection of over 500 full-text papers."

There has not been much recent research. Most of the researchers are retired or dead.

You need to read some of those papers to grasp the technical merits of the research. You might start with Storms "Student's Guide" which lists many other papers in the collection, and puts them in context. (The HTML version has direct links to them.)

bhankiii wrote:

"Since you asked for thoughts, mine are - this idea has been around since the 80's (?), and I've yet to see any practical application of it, therefore, whether it's real or not is irrelevant."

There are no practical applications for plasma fusion despite 60 years of intense research, and no practical applications for high temperature superconducting costing roughly $100 billion in research in both. Does that make them irrelevant? Should we stop research in any discovery that does not pan out in 20 years?

"My advice to cold fusion experimenters is the same as it is to all chasers of over-unity energy devices - keep working - if you make something that's actually useful, let us know."

According to experts in the U.S. Navy who developed similar solid state technology, it would cost roughly $300 to $600 million to develop cold fusion into a practical source of energy. A cold fusion experiment costs anywhere from $200,000 to $20 million. The research cannot be done cheaply. There is virtually no funding in the U.S. because of intense political opposition by academic rivals, and because the researchers are retired or dead. It is completely unreasonable to demand that researchers come up with something "actually useful" given the known difficulties and unanswered questions. They have made astounding progress working on a shoestring, but you cannot expect something for nothing. If you want progress, you have to give scientists laboratory space, mass spectrometers, and millions of dollars.

- Jed Rothwell

Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

it would cost roughly $300 to $600 million to develop cold fusion into a practical source of energy - cheaper than a single gasoline refinery, or a single silicon chip fab facility, and only twice as much as the new retail development going in across the street from me.

It's only a lot to spend if there's a substantial chance that it won't net any returns. Investors are pouring $billions into new energy research - fuel cells, biofuel, solar, wind - because the science behind them is good science. Money talks, bull$hit walks.

So, what are the technical issues keeping cold fusion from being developed into practical applications?

Bla, bla, bla, If you could actually get cold fusion to work, investors would be beating down you door. Basically, what you yourself have said, it just doesn't really work all the time. Your post is nothing but a list of excuses. Build it, and they will come. Right now, your argument is crap. Make it work, and show me. Otherwise, it's just another form of BS. The government has passed on this (rightly so), so it's in the realm of private enterprise, a much more difficult client to impress.

Hi Jed,

Interesting stuff.

Please register you would be a good addition to our community!

Providing proper links http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue79/apscoldfusionsession.html or RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf The last link I just copied & pasted from the len carr index page.

will help [people lose interest when they have to work too hard].

You are certainly correct about the time lag between discovery & practical implementation.

there will be more old chip fab equipment on the market, as the gates get smaller & the old eq won't do the work. You indicate quality cathodes as being 1 of the major hurdles to reproducing positive results.

What is the bias against cold fusion? too many con men?

Garthh wrote:

"What is the bias against cold fusion? too many con men?"

I don't know any con men in cold fusion. There is no funding, and never has been. If money starts to come into the field no doubt the con men will arrive.

I recommend you read the papers by skeptics such as Morrison, and the DoE ERAB report. Learn from them in their own word why they oppose it. I summarized the debate here:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

I have thought a lot about this. I have read books published by skeptics, and met with the leading skeptics, and read hundreds of messages from skeptics. I have read many history books describing similar opposition to other breakthroughs. Most new ideas meet opposition, including things you would think everyone would welcome, such as anesthesia and antiseptics (see Semmelweis) and things that seem inconsequential, such as the zipper. (People opposed the zipper because thought it would lead to sexual abandon.)

I conclude that it is human nature to oppose innovation. Some people embrace new ideas, but others instinctively oppose them. People are frightened by novelty. We are more afraid of being killed by cell phone-induced brain tumors that we are are of falling down stairs, even though staircases actually kill thousands of people, and cell phones probably do not.

Fleischmann told me, "People do not want progress. It makes them uncomfortable. They don't want it, and they shan't have it."

I think that we are living in an anti-intellectual, conservative, conformist, frightened era. Our horizons are shrinking. People don't like science. They don't want to try anything new, or explore, or learn. Many Americans believe in Creationism.

Apparently, many scientists and engineers never learned the basics of their own profession. They reject experimental evidence in favor of "consensus," or opinions handed down from on high from the editor at Nature, who they treat like the Pope. They jump to conclusions and lambaste papers they have not even read. They actually advocate ad hominem attacks. As Lindley said in 1990, "Would a measure of unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation have speeded cold fusion's demise?" I find such behavior unspeakably shocking! How can anyone who calls himself or herself an engineer or scientist do such things?!?

I recall my science classes in third grade, 45 years ago, as if they were yesterday. The teacher, Ms. Arsineo Allen, brought us into the woods and showed insects under the logs, and how fire goes out when you deprive it of air, and a hundred other things, but what she taught most -- what she drilled into us day after day -- were the fundamental rules of the scientific method: Learn from experience and experiment; nature is the only authority, not the teacher, not the textbook; keep an open mind; never accept or reject an idea until you have learned it and thought about it; think for yourself; always be prepared to change your mind when new facts emerge; when theory conflicts with experiments, the experiments are always right, the theory is always wrong . . . and so on. I was shocked to learn, after 1989, that many scientists and engineers do not know these rules. What's worse, when they hear these rules, they reject them angrily. In my experience, only the older generation of researchers believes in these things.

"Science" as practiced by people under 40 is some kind of kooky religion, with the Pope editor at Nature magazine; the excommunication of Pons and dozens of others driven from their jobs and their countries; the Inquisition conducted by our friend Congressman Miller; Laws we must not question in Holy Scripture Textbooks; and the "consensus opinion" we must all obey, which is written anonymously in Wikipedia instead of peer-reviewed journals. This is all garbage. It is the antithesis of science. Science is what you do with themocouples and x-ray film and boiling poisonous electrolyte.

See chapter 19 of my book for more on this subject.

- Jed Rothwell

A couple of things. I am not sure you have the scientific method properly outlined, you method outlines essentially every human activity include real estate transactions and artistic endeavours. Additionally, the theory is the science, the experiments are part of the process of the scientific method meant only to disprove a theory. If you approach the theory through many different expermients and none disprove it but rather support the theory then it is valid with in the realm it has been studied so far. skeptisim is a core part of the scientific method, theories that fail under rational skeptical review are flawed and do not valid scientific theories, experiments are a means to achieve rational skeptical review. Discovery and science are not the same thing. As i am sure you are skeptical about most common claims these days of new "scientific" discoveries, else you would be dead broke and have a ton of junk from TV ads alone.

Also, I believe there was probably a much higher percentage of the population in the 1960s and 70s that were highly religious than currently. And, the idea of science being religion is more applicable to the 1960s and 1970s, the corrupt claims of "scientists" in the 1960 through 1980s for such groups as tobacco smoking interests and silicone manufacturers has made people a little more wary of "scientific" claims and "scientists". This has also increased the skill and knowledge of the younger generations i believe. In the 60's most americans believed in the space program in part because they believed without any knowledge or skepticism that german scientists were brilliant at should not be questioned, that kind of behavior is more symptomatic of a religous faith based behavior. Those people believed without any tangible information. Modern people have an abundance of information available at their fingers, however, they get 10 highly questionable promotional "scientific" studies by some interested party for every truly study well founded in scientific method. Since we can not distinguish everything from the limited information presented, and the promoters adapt their publication to reflect the appearance of a scientific approach (only intimate details not presented could distinguish the process corruption), we are overwhelmed with information which would not be faith. Faith is belief with out rational information, and religion is a belief system based on faith.

It has always been thus and it will always be thus, as long as there is human nature; not just in science but in every field of human endeavor. Looking to history it is clear that, that which is not understood, is to be feared. I say this not as an academic but as a keen observer of the human condition. If we were not such prolific breeders it would be almost hard to imagine how we have survived this long as a species.

Really though, if you want to get something done with cold fusion, you will need to show that it has some quality that can be used for warfare. Many of the great advances in technology have come about for this reason.

Anyone know what it costs to buy a go used semiconductor chip fabrication machines?

Any chance we could go together and buy one? Might be fun.....

Maybe one of you EEs have one sitting around?

v1sor wrote:

"Anyone know what it costs to buy a go used semiconductor chip fabrication machines?"

Alas, the person who wanted to pursue that technique (precise, multiple thin film layers) died recently. I don't know anyone else working on that. It seems promising.

- Jed Rothwell

1.2 million hits. Hmm, so if the number of hits to a website is an indicator of the significance and scientific validity of a subject presented, how does the Trekkies or Britney Spears fan club compare? Do you think they get more requests for information? Also, keep in mind the Wright brothers did not imply they were conducting science, they made a discovery without having conducted the science behind the discovery. This happens frequently where people make some discovery without fully understanding the mechanics underlying the discovery. The idea of science is that the theory about the underlying mechanics will withstand rational testing by skeptics, and repeatedly not fail under the testing within acceptable parameters and under documented, repeatable, rational procedures.

Though don't get me wrong, I understand the need to promote the subject. As the librarian for CANR-LENR, your job is subject to excess financing available for such luxuries as a librarian, and new concepts for energy are usually financed by large financial interests or governments (universities also fall under this auspice). As we all know, if the revenue is not there, then the promotions and wage increases aren't there. This is why I myself am claiming a severe lack of maintanence, let alone advancement, of our failing infrastructure in California. Soon we may all be going to mexico to get good water, sewage will flood our streets in the winter, and driving off-road is safer on your vehicle than on-road. I believe the federal government should look at Hoover, Roosevelt and Eisenhower's infrastructure programs and the progress we made, comparitive to these pie-in-the-sky energy speculations, mars races, world policing defense effort, and international humanitarian efforts. We need more dams, road, canals, skyscrapers, tunnels, etc.. and maybe a little less of everything else that is unproven or unproductive to the benefit of americans directly.

I once had a professor who stated frequently, "Nothing is absolutely true and nothing is absolutely false". The statement itself implies an absolute...yet it certainly has "a ring of wisdom". Many scientists today prefer to use a null hypothesis and statistical analysis within the scientific method. When someone attempts to "prove" (I dislike the implication of this term) that they are correct or others are wrong, there is a chance that their own study may be intentionally or unintentionally biased. That does not mean that they can't politely question and critique the validity of each other's data, generalizations, or conclusions; that is what makes science "tick" and our knowledge base grow. Furthermore, all scientists need to be free to explore the universe (as I like to say, "search for the truth") without the influence of politics etc.

I want to know what others think?

If fusion can create virtually free energy...

(I'm not saying free free, but referring to the fact that early researchers figured it might be so inexpensive, that they could afford to give it away after the initial construction etc..) ...this when compared to conventional fuel sources..

anyway..

how effective is it to contain spent fuel in glass block form?

What about using plasma to melt the old rods with silica etc?

___ If the wates is stable in that it's can't leak, or become airborne, then it only becomes a matter of keeping it at a distance. something we are good at.

..there is a lot of false concern.

And If you want to produce hydrogen for mobile applications, you need lot's of abundant power.

my2cents

Since you asked for thoughts, mine are - this idea has been around since the 80's (?), and I've yet to see any practical application of it, therefore, whether it's real or not is irrelevant.

My advice to cold fusion experimenters is the same as it is to all chasers of over-unity energy devices - keep working - if you make something that's actually useful, let us know.

I do not believe that any energy is free, there is always a cost. I would suggest however that if you believe in Cold Fusion and think it is a good, cleaner energy source than others being researched, continue your research, but i am not convinced that my taxes should finance such research. However, there are many private funding opportunities and other governments that may be convinced to spend some of their money to fund such research (rather than waiting for us to research it, using my taxes, then developing the research they somehow have obtained from our universities and labs).

Well said! How refreshing to hear an articulate rational voice who has not succumbed to cynicism. It has always been very fashionable for intellectuals in the establishment to cast doubt on new ideas (this provides a lazy way to create the impression of being "knowledgeable"). I applaud those scientists that persevere with their "controversial" work despite the irrational negativity.

The thing here to keep in mind is that we are talking about the highly specualtive industry of energy, and discovery in energy doesn't necessarily occur becasue of valid science, but frequently people seeking easy money use the term science, scientist, scientific discovery to sell false promises. A good example is the early wildcatter period of oil discovery, and people like "Doc" Lloyd. He used a fraudulent scientific theory "nexus of the nexus" and claims of being a geologist to help promote sales (sometimes multiple sales of the same leases). He happened to accidentally foind oil on a well in east texas. He is remembered, but the question is for every Doc Lloyd out there who get lucky and makes a discovery in the course of committing his frauds, how many 100s of other do not. While we discuss how a discovery, with no supporting science (if there is no theory supported by demonstrably recreatable experiments it is not science, just discovery), could take 20 years to become applied, keep in mind piltdown man. Archeology is a very fringe "science" where you do not need a theory supported by recreatable experimentation, you can just find something and name it and make any claim about it implications. Piltdown man became accepted "science" for nearly 50 years before it was found to be a fraud.

Regarding the cost, there is more then the financial cost per unit of energy, keep in mind the impacts on humanity, quality of life and the environment. I suspect no matter how clean the promoters claim the energy source may be, there will be some associated waste stream that will adversely impact humanity, quality of life and the environment, and may be even turn out to be harder to clean up than what we have now and more toxic. Keep in mind the discovery of chlorinated pesticides and herbicides was a great boom for humanity, but the waste stream generated what is currently one of the most toxic materials known, 2,3,7,8 Dioxin. You must consider all the byproduct streams from long term applications of any discovery to the general market. where would California lakes be now if instead of listening to the promoter "scientist" and using MTBE, they had used a more scientifically well understood compound like Ethanol in the 1990s. "Science" in the energy business always seems to be more marketers and promoters, and less scientist than you find in many other industries, and it is a highly corrupting influence. Because of this corruption and the risks associated with energy production, we must be highly skleptical of all claims, especially those that lack a good scientific foundation (again no acceptable theory for the discovery and repeatable experimentation, no scientific foundation). Relativity is a reasonably good example of scientific method, and that had to go through skeptical reviews for many decades, even with multiple sources of repeatable experimental evidence supporting the theory. There isn't even an accepted theory for cold fusion, let alone experimentation that attempts to disprove it (experiments can only really disprove theories, they never actually prove theories because it just may not be the right experiment, a substantial number of broadly different experiments that attempt to demonstrate a theory in action and do not disprove it then means it has the appearance of accurately representing the mechanics of the system studied). We could still find experiments that may disprove relativity.

As I have been reading this thread it occurs to me there is a theory that is being pursued.

1. The theory is that a couple of metal plates in an isolated container can spontaneously produce heat.
2. There is also the theory that the heat is being produced by a process of fusion.
3. There is also the theory that this phenomenon produces other effects characteristic of fusion.
4. (There is also, perhaps, the theory that the little atoms are being caught in the lattice structure of the metal, and the lattice structure has enough strength to force the little atoms together close enough to have interaction between nuclei.)

There is also the theory that supports the concept of fusion, as well - two atoms join together producing a third different atom and energy. It is pretty well accepted, but I am not aware anyone has actually proven it, otherwise we would refer to it as a "Law."

There are lots of theories. To me, as an engineer, the theory is not the issue. The issue is that container with two pieces of metal in it. Does it produce heat? Is the heat produced in a useful way? With, or without theory, if the answer to those two questions is "yes" then this represents a technology that is VERY definitely worth pursuing.

Call me anything you wish, but to me that is just practical.

r/

Sam

(BZ: Jed)

v1sor wrote:

"As I have been reading this thread it occurs to me there is a theory that is being pursued.

1. The theory is that a couple of metal plates in an isolated container can spontaneously produce heat."

That is not a theory, it is an experimental observation. There is no widely-accepted theory to explain it, yet.

That statement is correct as far as it goes, but the conditions and materials have been described in far more detail. In other words, the alloys and purity of the metal plates, the extent of loading, open circuit voltage, optimum electrolyte makeup and much else has been described. Researchers can make the effect appear most of the time, and when it does not appear they can usually pinpoint the reason, such as cracks in the cathode or the presence of carbon in the electrolyte. But they do not understand the fundamental theoretical reason why it happens.

A comprehensive theory would be a tremendous help. Researchers use trial and error techniques now, which are time consuming, expensive and problematic.

- Jed Rothwell

Jed,

I understand the potential utility of a good theory or model of how the process works, but it is only a step along the way. If a different path was followed to a successful end then that is wonderful. But if a fantastic theory is developed and the system is never practical then that is still progress is the world of physics, but it is failure in the world of energy. Enough of that...

I intend to make an extended study of the technology. I don't want to just wade into it. What document is the best place to start? (Not a physicist, but I have a background in reactor design and controls, materials science, electrical circuits and the like. I have time. With a lot of effort I am convinced I can learn this subject.)

r/

Sam

v1sor:

"I intend to make an extended study of the technology. I don't want to just wade into it. What document is the best place to start?"

That's a ticklish question for me . . .

For an engineer's perspective, the Beaudette book is best. He is a retired engineer and a good writer.

I think many researchers would agree that the summaries and the book by Storms are a good place to start. I assembled an HTML version of his "Student's Guide" with links to the papers he references.

Some researchers disagree with some of his conclusions. Especially in the theory section of his book! That's very controversial. You will see this as you keep reading. Some theorists have told Storms: "you are an experimentalist so don't try to explain it!"

I am a librarian, so I have to be careful not to pick sides in these debates. I upload any paper the authors ask me to, as long as it has been published elsewhere. That includes papers that have no merit, in my judgment.

- Jed Rothwell

RCE wrote:

"The thing here to keep in mind is that we are talking about the highly speculative industry of energy, and discovery in energy doesn't necessarily occur because of valid science, but frequently people seeking easy money use the term science, scientist, scientific discovery to sell false promises. A good example is the early wildcatter period of oil discovery, and people like "Doc" Lloyd. . . ."

This example does not resemble the situation with cold fusion. All of the cold fusion researchers I know, including all ~2000 authors at LENR-CANR, are professional scientists. Most of them are professors at universities and national labs, mainly in Japan and Italy. Even if cold fusion is developed into a practical source of energy, they will not make a profit. Most are federal employees, like Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf and the others who developed the Internet. These people are famous among programmers, but they made no profit.

". . . He used a fraudulent scientific theory "nexus of the nexus" and claims of being a geologist to help promote sales (sometimes multiple sales of the same leases). . . ."

Again, this has no bearing on cold fusion. It is an observation, not a theory.

"Archeology is a very fringe "science" where you do not need a theory supported by recreatable experimentation . . ."

Whereas calorimetry, mass spectroscopy, x-ray detection and the other techniques employed in cold fusion are the most conventional, most reliable, well-understood and widely practiced techniques in science. If the techniques used in cold fusion are not reliable, then we must assume that most experimental science going back to 1840 is not reliable, which is preposterous.

"Regarding the cost, there is more then the financial cost per unit of energy, keep in mind the impacts on humanity, quality of life and the environment."

This is an important consideration. Every indication is that cold fusion would have a far smaller impact on humanity and the environment than fossil fuel, and that it will enhance the quality of life. That is why it is such an important breakthrough. (Assuming it can be made practical.)

"I suspect no matter how clean the promoters claim the energy source may be, there will be some associated waste stream that will adversely impact humanity, quality of life and the environment . . ."

Of course there will be a waste stream. No object can be manufactured or deployed without causing some impact on the environment.

". . . and may be even turn out to be harder to clean up than what we have now and more toxic."

There is not a single reason to think this. Based on similar widely deployed electrochemical technology, such as batteries, we can be confident that cold fusion technology will be minimally toxic and easy to clean up.

You have to have reasons for making assertions and assumptions that X or Y will be "harder to clean up" or "more toxic." You can't just wave your hand and declare that it will be. You have to look at the materials, the manufacturing and recycling techniques and so on, and draw a fact-based conclusion based on comparisons to existing technology.

"There isn't even an accepted theory for cold fusion, let alone experimentation that attempts to disprove it . . ."

Cold fusion is based on the laws of thermodynamics and the theory of operation of various mass spectrometer types (which vary). What kind of experiments are likely to disprove these things? Do you expect to prove that ~4.2 joules do not equal 1 calorie? Or that when 10E8 atoms of tritium appear in a sample, this is not caused by a nuclear process? You are demanding that we "disprove" the whole basis of modern chemistry and physics.

- Jed Rothwell

Interesting approach, skillfully learn from the tobacco lobbyist of the 60's through 80's. Partition and take portions of statements out of context and then generalize them as addressing science in a broad sense, when you can not address specific directly.

The issues still remains that there is no underlying theory of the mechanics and therefore no attempts to conduct experimentation which might disprove the theory. Generalizing it to the laws of thermodynamics is a bit broad, since everything can be generalized to have a basis in the laws of thermodynamics. You could make arguments for economic theories having a basis in thermodnamics. This is why they are physical laws, everything in nature must follow them, else they would be invalid.

Experimental techniques in general can be valid and reproduceable, in general, while specific applications may not, the use may be inappropriate, or even results may be biased. Just becasue you may utilized a techniques does not mean the results would have any meaning or accurately present data.

Finally, "Doc" Lloyd was just one example. Piltdown man was a discovery, actually a blatant fraud, that became well accepted for about 41 years by the "scientific" community. Arthur Smith, a highly accredited scientist, authored the articles proclaiming Piltdown Man (Boy did he make a mistake). But i guess other examples of "scientist" and the use of title and bad research to promote a product for your edigfication might include the works of Hwang Woo-Suk, Jan Hendrick Schon, Charles Nemeroff, Raphael Stricker, John Darsee, et. al.. Emil Abderhalden's research and theories regarding "Defensive Enzymes" is a good example.

In the end nothing is ever a scientific certainty, it is just that we have no other rational experiments to try and disprove the theory, and the theory always fits the mechanics of the system we observe within its applicable range, e.i. the Law of Gravity is applicable to a man falling out of his office window, but maybe relativity is a better fit for mechanics and natural behaviors of light passing near of objects larger than our sun.

RCE wrote:

"The issues still remains that there is no underlying theory of the mechanics and therefore no attempts to conduct experimentation which might disprove the theory."

There is no theory, as I noted previously. I think you should read the cold fusion literature, because the papers make it abundantly clear that there is no theory. You are making the same mistake repeatedly because you have not read the literature.

"Generalizing it to the laws of thermodynamics is a bit broad, since everything can be generalized to have a basis in the laws of thermodynamics . . ."

Cold fusion is not generalized to the laws of thermodynamics. It is based upon calorimetry, which is in turn based upon those laws.

In other words, to disprove cold fusion heat results, you have to show that calorimeters do not work. Not one particular calorimeter in one experiment. Hundreds of them, used in thousands of experiments over 20 years, in hundreds of different labs. To show that none of these instruments ever worked, and that every single one of these results is invalid, you have to prove that heat can flow by itself from a cooler body to a hotter body. And you have to show why nobody in the last 230 years noticed this extraordinary fact. That's a tall order, to say the least.

- Jed Rothwell

I suppose you prefer the government spending your tax money supporting research into string theory, which has been around for something like 50 years or so, and has yet to yield up a testable theory?

Some say it is just an illusion
This mysterious thing called Cold Fusion
But fund us a billion
Or maybe a trillion
And we'll prove that it's not a delusion.

Bruce wrote:

"But fund us a billion
Or maybe a trillion
And we'll prove that it's not a delusion."

The experiments already published prove it is not a delusion. If you do not believe this, then I do not think a billion or trillion dollars more experimental proof would sway you. Once you reject the laws of thermodynamics and convince yourself that tritium detectors and x-ray film don't work, or you decide that "Nature" magazine is the one and only Holy Authority and you will not believe a result until they bless it, you are a lost cause. It is like trying to convince a Creationist that the world is more than 10,000 years old.

- Jed Rothwell

Hello Jed,

Before reading this thread, I had never even heard of cold fusion. You have raised a number of interesting points about the psychology of people and particularly engineers and scientists when it comes to accepting new ideas.

For my own part, I neither accept nor reject the concept of cold fusion. For one thing, I do not even begin to understand it. Until I do, I will keep an open mind.

I do not reject the laws of thermodynamics and have no idea what a tritium detector is, much less suggest that it does or doesn't work. I'm pretty sure that X-rays work, however because I have seen evidence of that on my last visit to the dentist.

Lighten up, Jed.

ba/ael wrote:

"For my own part, I neither accept nor reject the concept of cold fusion. For one thing, I do not even begin to understand it. Until I do, I will keep an open mind."

That's the right attitude! Good for you. I would never ask anyone to accept or reject the claims without carefully examining them. Although the evidence is compelling, in my opinion, it is also complex and not easy to grasp at first.

- Jed Rothwell

By the way, just out of curiousity what does the acronym LENR-CANR mean. It has that sound of a formal DOE energy research facility like LANL or LLNL. That is actually a good marketing and promotional idea, gives the organization the sound of a deeply established, and typically perceived as relatively unbiased government funded research program. Which brings up the question of how LENR-CANR is funded, since it appears from other statements previous that the Government is not funding cold fusion research efforts, except through university research.

Also, I would suggest that you could never prove anything, only disprove it. However, numerous attempts through a variety of approaches attempting to disprove something, which do not disprove the theory, reinforce the plausibility that the theory might be accurate within the range it can be tested. As such no amount of research can ever prove Cold Fusion. However, if there are a substantial number of experiments with many approaches to the underlying theory for the mechanics of Cold Fusion that fail to generate questionable or ambiguous results, with no valid experiments where the results are in opposition to the theory. Then you may be on to something. Are there any data from valid scientific research that would indicate the principles of Cold Fusion are not accurate? Are the supporting research results ambiguous or questionable, or do they fully explain the mechanics through a rational method and language? A rational argument restricts it to the mathematical arguments must prove and support the theory.

I personally do not care, as log as i am not paying for it. If however, I am paying the government and they are paying for the research, I want to know that my investment is sound. I know solar energy works, it is well established. If Cold Fusion promoters could develop a theory that supports cold fusion as well as Einstein did with the photelectric effect, I would feel much more enthusiastic about the "science". However, this then leads to the engineering and application which could be so costly it would not be worth the investment. Sort of like cosmology, there may be no practical application that is ever derived, and as such not worth as much as say inventing a new and better plow. I am sure the people in the food riots in egypt or mexico would rather seen money invested elsewhere.

RCE wrote:

"If Cold Fusion promoters could develop a theory that supports cold fusion as well as Einstein did with the photelectric effect, I would feel much more enthusiastic about the 'science'."

This is putting the cart before the horse. Experiments are paramount in science. They overrule theory. If you have experimental proof you don't need a theory. And if all you have is a theory and no experimental proof, you have nothing yet.

"However, this then leads to the engineering and application which could be so costly it would not be worth the investment."

That is unlikely, but we have to do the research and the engineering to be sure. If you want progress, you must pay for research and take the risk that it may fail.

"I am sure the people in the food riots in egypt or mexico would rather seen money invested elsewhere."

I am also sure they would. So would most people in the U.S. That is why science has been shortchanged throughout history.

Scientific research has probably produced a million, million times more benefits than it cost, but people STILL think it is an ivory-tower waste of money. They STILL want to put money into short-term "pragmatic" uses such as drilling for oil in Alaska. We spend billions of dollars a day on oil and coal, and probably $2 trillion on the war in Iraq, which is fundamentally a fight over oil. Oil and coal are probably causing global warming, which may eventually kill millions of people and cause the extinction of millions of species. And yet, despite these dire circumstances and enormous expenses, our government and most people -- even including most engineers and scientists -- will not begrudge $1 million or even $100,000 per year to find out why cold fusion works, and to find out whether it can be made practical. This kind of short-sighted, self-destructive behavior has been common throughout history, as described by J. Diamond in the book "Collapse."

If it turns out cold fusion is developed, people will look back on these events with incredulity -- with the same incredulity we look back at Semmelweis. He discovered that washing your hands in the hospital will save millions of lives every year. His reward was to be ridiculed, censured, attacked and finally thrown into a lunatic asylum where he was soon beaten to death by the guards.

The cold fusion scientists may have discovered a solution to the energy crisis that will bring immense wealth to people everywhere, at a trivial cost in research dollars. And their reward has been . . . calumny, ridicule, threats, firings, being hauled before Congress, the destruction of dozens of careers, marriages and lives. In 1989, moments after announcing cold fusion, Fleischmann told a friend that this spelled the end of his reputation and career. He knew all along he would be destroyed, but he went ahead and did the research, and then announced it. It was one of bravest and most selfless acts in the history of science.

- Jed Rothwell

"We spend billions of dollars a day on oil and coal, and probably $2 trillion on the war in Iraq, which is fundamentally a fight over oil."

I think you just tipped your hand right there. If the war in Iraq is about oil, why are the military camps not stationed in oil fields rather than in population centers? And why does Iraq have nearly a $100B surplus from oil revenues that arguably should go to the US government as a down payment on democracy?

I think we're beginning to see your real motives, now...

Guest wrote:

"We spend billions of dollars a day on oil and coal, and probably $2 trillion on the war in Iraq, which is fundamentally a fight over oil."

I think you just tipped your hand right there. If the war in Iraq is about oil, why are the military camps not stationed in oil fields rather than in population centers?"

Well, I suppose there are soldiers posted at the oil fields as well, or the fields would be attacked. I wouldn't know. In a war, most soldiers are posted where the enemy is.

In the book I framed this thought in a more nuanced fashion, that you might agree with:

"The Iraq war may not be 'a war for oil' as some critics charge, but oil is surely a proximate cause. If the Middle East did not have oil, the U.S. would not be embroiled there."

Obviously I am not suggesting the U.S. intends to invade other oil-rich nations such as Canada and Venezuela. We wouldn't do that . . . would we? I hope?

"I think we're beginning to see your real motives, now..."

What motives are you beginning to see?

Reading my own messages, I would judge them as single-minded, if not downright obsessive, and the motives could not be clearer. I barely mentioned the war in Iraq, and my views about it have little to do with the subject at hand. Also, my political views do not detract in any way from the scientific validity of papers written by hundreds of professors. You should not judge their work based on my politics.

- Jed Rothwell

This is way off topic, but since the US did not receive much oil from iraq, and the war has substantially increased the cost of oil. It should be clear that the US supply of oil was not the real cause. At the core, when we entered afghanistan i was discssuin with a former ranger friend of mine how the war on terror was going to get mired down fighting in pockets guerrilla style dealing with the tribal issues and pakistani corruption in afghanistan. The solution i explained to my Fred at that time was to have a more conventional larger scale war in parallel to distract the public from afghanistan, and the elder Bush's war in iraq was an ideal scenario for that kind of cover, a conventional land war with military forces. The problem arose that younger Bush was not wise enough to get out after the war, and has been losing the peace. Additionally, the war did not last long enough to cover for afghanistan. I think that if you look back at our involvements in places like serbia and somalia, you will see that a protracted engagement, no matter how small, gets less popular with time and press coverage. You must give the press something else to do if you really want to do anything to address the isssues in afghanistan which were allowed to degrade the society to far to easily address in a few months. Younger Bush's problem is a lack of pragmatism, he is a believer that you can bring democracy to people and they will want it. Even most american's didn't want democracy during the revolutionary war. He won the war against Hussien, but will lose the peace in an attempt to bring a shining example government to a country composed of many differing ethnic groups who have been at each others throats as long as recorded history (different religions and they still fight). though i must admit, it has been effective cover for the activities in afghanistan. If the news had been covering afghanistan all this time, we would likely be having to deal with all the corruption in pakistan now (since much of the issues that have allowed terrorist to proliferate in afghanistan also involves and has involved pakistans assistance for decades). Under constant news coverage however, we probably would not have been in afghanistan, it would have been another somalia.

This is where you have a fundamental mistake. The theory is the science, the experiments are part of the method to evaluate the theory. Experiments in which the the theory is derived as a solution to fit the theory is valid engineering, but not science. And discovery does not constitute science, otherwise Columbus would be a scientist, or the first man to be struck by lightning. Galileo and Newton were not a scientist for their discoveries, but for the theories he derived to explain his discoveries, and his theories were not disproven by the science. This is a very basic explanation of scientific method that every chemistry and physics major gets drummed into them at even a rudimentary level in undergrad school. Science explain why, in theories, and experiments are the real world test of theories, if accurate, will not disprove them. The reason i chose Einstein is that his method was an exceptional application of scientific method, many time this does not occur. You make a discovery, then you develop the theory to explain the discovery, then you conduct experiments to disprove the theory (and hope they fail to disprove your theory by having the results your theory would predict). His theory was proven (this is done through a mathematical proof not experimentation) in the only rational logical method man has available for such arguments, then people conducted the experiments relating to the theory. Now faith is when you believe something before the scientific process is completed. That is when you make a discovery and believe the explanations, sometimes quite compelling explanations. Part of the reason science gets discounted by the general public, beside the lack of understanding, is the misinformation about the scientific method. Too many people perceive that discovery is scientific method, and do not understand the reason for the theories or the experimentation regarding the theories. As you have indicated many people are faith based and once there is a discovery made and someone comes forth with an explanation and scientific credentials, most people assume at that point it is some form of scientific principle. Considering as i have a double undergrad major that consist of earth science and chemistry, and a engineering masters, i do not believe science is a waste of money. However, I do recognize that there are many people out there who make grad claims, and use the term science to validate their claims to the ignorant public seeking fame, fortune, glory, recognition, racial purity, you name it. the waste of money comes when the expense leads you in a direction that is recognizably less viable up front than more passive directions. Everything has a cost, so selection is based on that which has the least overall cost to obtain a practical application. And, for new discoveries the hidden costs can be substantial and not yet known. One thing to consider is how and where do you obtain raw fuels and components, and evaluate the costs related to these, waste streams, repairs, etc.. We as a population in the US generally recognize that petroleum as a energy source is costing too much, but I am not convinced that a belief in an unproven discovery is the solution, let the scientific process evaluate the technology and then the engineers can begin developing pilot scale systems to evalaute much of the hidden cost over years.

RCE wrote:

"This is where you have a fundamental mistake. The theory is the science, the experiments are part of the method to evaluate the theory."

The chemists and electrochemists I know disagree with you. Experimentalists in all fields disagree with you.

Perhaps some theorists see things your way.

- Jed Rothwell

Well that is a good ploy to address someone educated as a chemist, claim that other chemists you know disagree, and it deflects your own liability in the claim. However, I suspect that there has either been miscommunication, or none at all with these other chemist, since this is fundamental to science. This is why there are experiments to demonstrate theory, the theory is the core of science, it is the explanation of the mechanics of the universe. Experiments do not explain the mechanics, they can demonstrate it, but do not present the rational argument about how the system works. Don't get me wrong experiments are necessary to science, they are the test of validity of the theory. Otherwise you have an untested theory. This is how science fundamentally diffeers from something liek engineering. Engineering does not need a theory that describes the mechanics, we can experiment and have a direct numerical best fitted solution to the data and use that with out understanding of the underlying principles that govern the mechanics. There are many examples of engineering theories that involve experimental data and have a solution derived to fit the data, without any direct mathematical proof that explains the mechanics of the systems. And those engineering theories work quite well, and we just add factors of safety for the unknowns. I do not indicate that there is no observed discovery, only that it doesn't qualify as science yet. Now it may qualify at some point in the future, but it has not met the criteria yet. Additionally, it could just move into application as a engineering principle and we never have a complete understanding. We just know it works with some precision and factors of safety. However, i am guessing that your faith in this discovery is in part dependant on it being scientifically validated. Plus the general public tends to fund projects that have a valid scientific principle, or is "science", and they believe therefore can be explained, rather than we don't know how it works but the experiments show something happens and we fit the numbers to the data to engineer it.

Jed,

A couple of questions. How did you come to involved in this research? Apparently you are aware of research in the subject that is ongoing now. If you can tell us, where is the present research; who is doing it? Thanks.

Guest wrote:

A couple of questions. How did you come to involved in this research?

I just wandered into it, you might say. I am a programmer and technical writer. I did some biology experiments in college (in Japan) but apart from undergraduate physics (in the U.S.), but I have no professional experience. I have been able to help several researchers mainly by editing and translating papers, maintaining a database and website of papers, and some analysis of calorimetry data. I have been to many conferences and labs and I am helping with the August conference in Washington, which I hereby cordially invite anyone to attend. (See http://www.iccf-14.org/)

"Apparently you are aware of research in the subject that is ongoing now. If you can tell us, where is the present research; who is doing it?"

There isn't much going on, unfortunately. Most of the researchers are retired or dead. I guess the most promising current work is the joint research with SRI, the Italian Nat. Labs. and an Israeli company. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHthesignifi.pdf

There is some other good stuff happening in Italy, Japan and China, in the U.S. Navy, and I think there is good chance the Indian national labs will get back in the game. The Indians did some of the best work on record in the 1990s. The list of Recent Papers at LENR-CANR.org for some reports from India, plus our BARC Special Collection. Read the news report from Nature (India) the reviews & research by Iyengar, who was the head of the Atomic Energy Commission.

I know of some hush-hush projects that I cannot discuss. Some are promising. Mainly they are secret to prevent the skeptics from interfering.

There may be projects I have not heard about, especially at corporations. I only follow open, academic research that the authors want to share with other researchers. I ask researchers not to tell me stuff they do not plan to publish -- or at least show at a conference poster session. (Some of the papers from Iran and Russia in our library have not been presented because the authors cannot afford to attend conferences, but I feel they deserve exposure, so I edited them and asked the conference proc. editors to include them.)

I have uploaded ~500 papers, plus ~100 non-papers such as newspaper articles and my book. I have ~1,200 other papers in scanned images, electronic copies and paper copies that the authors and/or publishers have not given me permission to upload. That's a shame.

- Jed Rothwell

Thanks Jed...hours of excellent argument...I agree with most of your comments that I understood. I have four degrees, but will never reach your level of intellectual thought.

LENR refers to low energy nuclear reaction...another way of referring to cold fusion. Many claim that it is not the same as cold fusion to avoid the negative connotation.

My energy project cost me zero to fabricate and test.

and there is no question. It's operable and clean.

Please elaborate.

I would love too... but that part does cost money.

I'll get back to you on that...

I only touch on it in another post.

" Many of our worst political crises are mixed up with energy, especially oil. The Iraq war may not

be "a war for oil" as some critics charge, but oil is surely a proximate cause. If the Middle East "

Since the beginning of mankind, man has sought to control the world. This has not changed, not ever! Bankers are try to set up their central bank in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war is an excuse to do just that. Rothchild's with their Komrads are doing just that.

There is no shortage of oil. That's a bald-face lie. America is trading their constitution for slavery to the corporations that are now every where in America. Checkout google video:

1. "America Freedom to fascism",

2. "Loose Change",

3. "End Game",

4. "The Clinton Chronicles"

WTPRN.Com