TED Conversations

Gregory Goble


This conversation is closed.

NASA LENR Energy is Emergent for Good or Bad

LENR, ZPE, Graphene, Nanotechnology, Robotics, Virtual IT, Supercomputers, Artificial Intelligence, and Bioengineering; all these arts of science and advanced technologies are of interest. Everyone should review this first document, envision the solution proposed by Dennis Bushnell, bring the issues forward in public forums, and work together to create a world where people do not feel the need to go to war.

The other links document NASA LENR aircraft and space plane works.

Future Strategic Issues/Future Warfare [Circa 2025] Dennis Bushnell – NASA – LENR http://fedgeno.com/documents/future-strategic-issues-and-warfare.pdf

NASA LENR Aircraft

Doug Wells - NARI http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/Wells

Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft Investigator: Doug Wells, NASA Langley Research Center http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/17WELLS_ABSTRACT.pdf

SpaceWorks Engineering

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Energy Sources
SpaceWorks is a key systems analysis partner to NASA's Langley Research Center for a revolutionary new energy source known as LENR. Safe and controllable energy from a LENR heat source could enable game-changing advances in space launch systems including simple single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) fully-reusable launch vehicles with water as the vehicle's only propellant.


Closing Statement from Gregory Goble

As I review I only wonder... what next? Peter Diamandis could certainly give an excellent Ted Talk on this subject.
미래의 에너지 LENR (Cold fusion)
파르셀 (parcel) 2012-07-17 오후 1:12:04 1143회 조회 등록된 파일이 없습니다. Cold Fusion이 더 복잡한 이름인 LENR(CANR)이라고 요즘 자주 불리웁니다. 오바마의 그린 에너지 정책 때문이랄까 많이 기대를 담고 있습니다...
Cold Fusion (LENR) 영상
효율적입니다. 출처 : http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/11/thorium-cold-fusion-report-and-video-in-french/ 그리고 LENR 실험 그룹 중의 하나로 대부분을 오픈소스화 시킬 예정인 MFMP(Marting Fleischmann Memorial...
Device: Low Energy Nuclear Reaction(LENR) Devices Message Board...
observations, including transmutations, the "recent" consideration of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) began in the late 80 s with the Pons/Fleischmann observations and assertions regarding what they...
Device: Low Energy Nuclear Reaction(LENR) Devices Message Board...
Elforsk Publishes New Report on LENR November 25, 2013
NASA LENR Energy is Emergent for Good or Bad | A conversation on...
I like the cargo ship application for the LENR propulsion system. I don t like the application designed for the winged transport, it doesn t seem well thought out. I understand the need for speed but this...
LENR | TED | Conversations
Ed TED Initiatives Translations TED Fellows TED Conversations Topics Conversations matching "LENR" Showing page 1 of 1 Ideas NASA LENR Energy is Emergent for Good or Bad Started by Gregory Goble,22comments ...
웹문서 더보기

  • Mar 9 2014: Seems two decades of supression of LENR happened for a reason. I wonder what has changed that this is coming out now? Will this be a new boom, like the internet, with billions pumped into it, or is someone in the background prepared to privitize it. If it's to be a new boom, hopefully they won't feel need to create another artificial mortgage crisis to burst the bubble, to retain control of the economy. Wide-spread wealth could lead to issues of strained resource and population control.
    • thumb
      Mar 10 2014: There has been no suppression. It's just that when many experiments in cold-fusion all failed they decided to change the name to LENR. as cold-fusion had a siigma. The problem is that the experiments continue to fail, even with a catchy new name,
      • Mar 10 2014: Except that not ALL the experiments fail. The ones that succeed exhibit excess heat, from a small amount to meltdowns if Rossi is to be believed. I freely admit that the physics community is currently stumped and cannot explain with the current theories. That's a good thing as we need new theories, such as one to explain Gravity for example.

        Michael Faraday was selling electric motors for 40 years before there was a scientific theory that described how they work. That didn't stop the motors from working.

        BTW, Cold Fusion does indeed have a 'stigma': the US Patent Office will not consider anything with the words 'Cold Fusion' in its description. If I discovered/invented anything which exhibited the property of fusion but did not occur at sun-like temperatures and pressures I would have no choice but to label it something else if I wanted to patent it.
        • thumb
          Mar 10 2014: "Michael Faraday was selling electric motors for 40 years before there was a scientific theory that described how they work. That didn't stop the motors from working." Faraday actually discovered the motor effect, described it scientifically and then people started to build motors based on the science.
      • Mar 10 2014: Peter
        The Hagelstein/Schwarz lectures at MIT 2014 are reasonably convincing.
        Looking at the NASA link above, NASA seems to be taking it seriously.
        Whether the supression was intentional or merely derisive, it has detered public development.
        Industrial scale-up will certainly confront considerable technical issues requiring major funding.
        Somehow I suspect that funding is coming.
        • thumb
          Apr 4 2014: the cognitive cascade that some consider as a suppression seems to be caused by 5 incompetent outspoken, aggressive non-powerful people : Lewis,Hansen,Taubes,Huizenga,Morrison.
          They had no qualities, but their outspoken positions resonated with the secret desires and bias of very powerful and competent scientist and decision makers, who carefully did not read neither their books and papers, nor any positive paper, but supported blindly and publicly those undefendable claims based on no evidence , many errors, and total lack of ethic.
          (see groupthink MAD http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf to understand how intelligent people ca refuse to see evidence)

          What I say sure looks aggressive, but it is in fact the flat analysis of facts.

          in the paper making the parallel between Titanic myths and Cold fusion myths some elements are really shocking.


          It is confirmed with less violence by Charles Beaudette in "Excess Heat"

          if you doubt Morrison was incompeten tou can find the debunking of his claims here:

          for Hansen and Lewis who are less incompetent, Beaudette gives the key arguments.

          Since I ask for any written challenge of F&P calorimetry, I only got the critic of Shanahan (by himself, honestly) which is refuted for reason that everybody can understand.

          It seems cold fusion deniers are not interested in evidences, rather in theory and conspiracies, like most of the population today, like the Nobel who supported the 5-clowns-gang, like Wikipedia admin, even like most supporters.

          Cold fusion denial is a fiasco of Aristotelianism, of groupthink,of consensus, or bureaucracy and global media, a failure of materialism, scientific method, experimental sciences, academic freedom.
      • Mar 11 2014: Hi all

        With regard to Peter Lindsay's first post.

        As the MIT lectures make clear, and I presume you viewed them, if you are commenting here. If not then I remind you that in science and knowledge one has to do what Galileo did and put ones eye to the telescope. Any other course is that of a religion and not science.

        There are several causes to experiments that fail to reproduce the effect. the first is failure to adequately load the material. This aspect is chemistry, and most of the physicists attempting to reproduce the excess heat effect fail at this stage; as they do not have the necessary chemistry knowledge to achieve the loading levels required. Some nuclear chemists and some teams where both chemists and physicists are involved, have had far better success in repeating the anomalous heat effect first found by Fleischmann and Pons. At the last count approximately 150 plus papers have been published in peer reviewed sources where the effect has been successfully reproduced.

        There are also several other aspects including material preparation that come into play.

        There are several theories as to what is causing the excess heat, but none of them are yet robust enough to specify the process and allow engineers to precisely tune the effect for maximum energy output. Clearly the anomalous heat effect needs more research. Though that is now happening.

        In the meantime some engineers and scientists have been taking the Edisonian approach in order both to increase output and to refine the knowledge needed to make a theory possible.

        One must of course do the experiments and engineering in order to come up with the theory.

        It is worth remembering we used and improved our use of fire for thousands of years before we achieved even basic theories of combustion and that it is the nature of science to explore and that we have theories because we accept in science that there is no absolute knowledge and that each theory is just a place holder until we know better.
      • Mar 12 2014: "In 1821 after being inspired by the work of Danish physicist and chemist, Hans Christian, he began experimenting with electromagnetism and by signifying the conversion of electrical energy into motive force, devised the electric motor. For the next few years he continued conducting experiments from his initial electromagnetic discovery. In 1831 Faraday discovered the induction of electric currents and constructed the first electric dynamo. In 1839 he conducted several experiments to determine the fundamental nature of electricity and established that electrostatic force consists of a field of curved lines of force and conceived a specific inductive capacity. This led to the development his theories on light and gravitational systems."

        He devised the electric motor in 1821 and the theory did not follow until more than 18 years later. I couldn't find an exact date in a quick search, but Faraday was making motors BEFORE the theory that described how they worked existed. I hope the same is true of Rossi's work and NASA's LENR experiments. 40 years was a number stuck in my head - not an exact date. Sorry.
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2014: The first commercially successful electric motors didn't appear until the 1870s, though the first patent was in 1837. There was no reliable supply of power at this stage.
      • Mar 13 2014: H all

        In reply to Peter Lindsay on the matter of providing links to some of the peer reviewed papers.

        Papers in peer reviewed publications usually require you to buy the the publication, it is a way the authors and publications make money ;) A way to see them for free is to go to an academic library or through a national public library.

        We are up against the max characters limit here so Google to find the lists of papers, then a further Google search to find if the publication or authors have made them available on-line, just as I have here:

        Isoperibolic calorimetry on modified fleischmann-pons cells
        G. Preparata, M. Scorletti, M. Verpelli
        Dipartimento di Fisica, Universitá di Milano INFN, Sezione di Milano, Milan 20133, Italy
        Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry - J ELECTROANAL CHEM 01/1996; 411(1):9-18. DOI:10.1016/0022-0728(96)04588-3

        Available on-line at:

        Helium production during the electrolysis of D2O in cold fusion experiments
        B. F. Bush, J. J. Lagowski, M. H. Miles, G. S. Ostrom
        Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry - J ELECTROANAL CHEM. 01/1991; 304:271-278.


        Preliminary investigation of possible low-temperature fusion
        Charles E. Scott, Elias Greenbaum, Gordon E. Michaels, John E. Mrochek, Eugene Newman, Milica Petek, Timothy C. Scott
        [show abstract]
        Journal of Fusion Energy 05/1990; 9(2):115-119. · 1.00 Impact Factor

        There are several lists of peer reviewed LENR/Cold Fusion papers on the web, Google is your friend here! those above came from here

        On the matter commercial use it requires a separate post.
      • Mar 15 2014: Hi all

        In reply to peter lindsay on the matter of age of the linked papers. I was quoting from the indexed list at the bottom of the post:

        The posts were a selection from the top of the list which is sorted by date. And as older papers they are more likely to be available free on the internet, to get to the newer papers in that list either you must go to a library or subscribe to the publications.

        I presumed you would investigate the links and methodology to check the details for your self rather than just relying on some one who might be biassed; hence why I posted up the search methodology for you to check yourself, that was an assumption and it made an ass of both of us :(

        There are some recent papers indexed and archived on the web here:

        Cross check to verify source is using actual papers!

        Here are some other more recent papers again the library.

        Heavy Element Transmutation in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
        Iwamura, Yasuhiro, "Transmutation Reactions Induced by Deuterium Permeation through Nano- structured Pd Multilayer Thin Film," Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 107, ISSN 0003-018x, p. 422-425, (2012)

        Heavy Element Transmutation in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
        Hioki, Tatsumi, Takahashi, Naoko, Kosaka, Satoru, Nishi, Teppei, Azuma, Hirozumi, Hibi, Shogo, Higuchi, Yuki, Murase, Atsushi and Motohiro, Tomoyoshi, "Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry Study on the Increase in the Amount of Pr Atoms for Cs-Ion-Implanted Pd/CaO Multilayer Complex with Deuterium Permeation," Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 52, (October 4, 2013)

        Isotopic Shifts and Transmutations
        Bush, Ben F. and Lagowski, Joseph J., "Trace Elements Added to Palladium by Electrolysis in Heavy Water," (Albert Machiels, Thomas Passell, Project Managers) EPRI TP-108743, November 1999 (Pons experiment)

        Kind Regards walker
        • thumb
          Mar 17 2014: I still can't work out why none of them manage to publish in mainstream physics journals.
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2014: none of them succeded to publish in high impact journal, except F&P , because an unethical blocus is orginased by high impact US journals.
          see that bad excuse paper

          see that paper by Pam Boss (who published in mid-impact magazine dozens of times)
          The purpose of scientific journals is to review papers for scientific validity and to disseminate new theoretical and experimental results. This requires that the editors and reviewers be impartial. Our attempt to publish novel experimental results in a renowned
          physics journal shows that in some cases editors and reviewers are not impartial; they are biased and closed-minded. Although our subject matter was technical, its rejection was not: it was emotionally charged. It was an agenda-laden rejection of legitimate experiments that were conducted in US DoD and DoE laboratories. This paper describes the flawed journal review process, detailing our own case and citing others. Such behavior on the part of editors and reviewers has a stifling effect on innovation and the diffusion of knowledge."

          on report 41
      • Mar 17 2014: Hi all

        In reply to peter lindsay's point quibbling about which which field the Fleischmann/Pons (F/P) effect should be peer reviewed in. In your last post you wanted them to reply in a medical journal. You do not seem to be grasping the fact that the fundamental enabling factors here are chemistry.

        Peer review is peer review. You do not ask Sir Simon Rattle to Peer Review a paper on Astronomy.

        The process that creates the loading of the material and the environment that the physics takes place in is 90% advanced Chemistry, so it is in the chemistry field that there is a primary source for peers who can understand what is happening, most physicists would not have the expertise to comment on this subject, perhaps a few nuclear chemists and some interdisciplinary teams of chemists and physicists, in fact if you look at the the successful repetitions of the F/P effect most are chemists or interdisciplinary teams.

        Physics only plays a part afterwards and is a matter for physicists to work on a physics theory that fits what is happening. Some are doing this and there are currently about a dozen competing theories as to the cause of the excess heat. As the MIT videos pointed out the theories keep being made but none has successfully explained the experimental results in full.

        As said there is a whole bunch of research to be done by the Physics community.

        In the mean time the chemists have to continue on refining and improving the experiments while the engineers continue to increase output and build useful tools from the effect.

        I sure at some stage the Physics community will catch up.

        Kind regards walker
        • thumb
          Mar 17 2014: If it involves neutrons it is physics. In chemistry neutrons have no function. And I wasn't asking for papers to be published in Nature, just in a juornal of similar academic reputation, rather than those that have been shown to have little rigor regarding peer review or those that are founded to promote research in a particular field that no other journals are interested in.
      • Mar 19 2014: Hi all

        In Reply to peter lindsay

        1) On the matter of Neutrons.

        No high energy Neutron output has been reliably and repeat-ably detected in any LENR/CF experiment. Fast Neutrons are function of Hot Fusion. This is a process that does not involve the high temperatures that are associated with high energy Neutrons.

        That is not to say that there appears to be no nuclear process, that has yet to be determined and Gamma Rays, Tritium and Helium have all been reliably and repeatedly detected and are linked in several of the papers I linked above, so those do indicate a nuclear process; all though for gamma, experiments seem to show the gamma is output only at the initiation of an excess heat producing reaction or where the experiment is designed to poison the reaction, analogous to a car backfiring.

        2) On the matter of continuing quibbles about what constitutes a peer reviewed publication.

        I just want to verify your position as it appears odd; "Transactions of the American Nuclear Society"

        and the "Japanese Journal of Applied Physics"

        are not reputable publications according to you?

        You might wish to re-examine that remark. I am sure you did not mean it that way and would be happy to withdraw the remark. I await your next post on the matter.

        "Could you provide links to some of the peer reviewed papers? "is what you asked for, and exactly what I supplied

        This was in order refute the fallacy that the Fleischmann/Pons effect has not been reliably repeated when you said "...when many experiments in cold-fusion all failed they decided to change the name to LENR. as cold-fusion had a siigma. The problem is that the experiments continue to fail, even with a catchy new name,"

        An unverified statement with no supporting evidence what so ever.

        In the end Peer Reviewed Publications are Peer Reviewed Publications,

        In the immortal words of Buffy the Vampire Slayer "Yay! I win" :D

        Kind Regards walker
        • thumb
          Mar 19 2014: The two publications you name have an impact factor of 1 and 0 respectively. And the Journal of electroanalytical chemistry, with an impact factor of 2.58 is the one that was panned for publishing the original experiment after Nature? had declined on the basis of inadequate peer review.
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2014: the high impact factor journals are currently highly criticized by Nobel for blocking innovation and behaving unethically.
          beside some past tragedy

          For cold fusion theor organized a visible blocus that is a shame.
          anyway from what have already been published, and from the facst that there is no written article that is maintained today agains LENr experiments, you can conclude that it is an observation replicated and that cannot be explained by artifact.

          theoretical argument that it is impossible are not scientific, but dogmatic.
          as well said this is a chemistry question, and chemistry is clear : there is more heat produced in some situation than what can chemistry provide in any way.

          if you have an affirmative paper proposing proven artifact challenging the thousands of experiments done (at least McKubre, F&P, Fralick89/NRL2008, Oriani, Miles/Bush,DeNinno) that is not yet rebutted, give it to me and I will relay it to the LENR editor of naturWissenschaften for review and rebuttal.

          for now there is nothing.
          what are for you the evidence that prove F&P/Oriani/McKubre/Miles were wrong?
          forget Lewis/hansen who are incompetent, forget failures which are proving nothing and which are today explained by ENEA, forget conspiracy theories like Huizenga's/Taube's unproven international conspiracy theories...
          anything ?
      • Mar 20 2014: Hi all

        In Reply to peter lindsay's pseudo metric of impact factor.

        You are aware that impact factor:

        1) Does not work across academic boundaries?
        2) That it has been shown to be gamed by publications, so as to produce false results?
        3) That the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee told higher Education Funding Council and their Research Exercise panels to stop using as it is flawed?
        4) That it has lead to a reduction in real research, as reviews score more highly in this skewed metric?
        5) That the European Association of Science Editors put out an official statement saying it cannot be used in the way you just used it?
        6) That the International Council for Science wants to penalise those scientists that over rely on this measure to game publications and this measure?
        7) That the National Science Foundation (US) and the Research Assessment Exercise (UK) and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft have all downgraded this metric and has lead the American Society for Cell Biology to create The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) precisely to end the use of Impact Factor?

        I remind you also that one has to put ones eye to the telescope to call ones self a scientist.

        Once again: In the immortal words of Buffy the Vampire Slayer "Yay! I win" :D

        Kind Regards walker
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2014: Upon reading the criticism of impact factor calculations I accept that it is possible to artificially raise your impact factor, however, a score of zero just means that nobody read your journal, or if they do read it thay do not take it seriously. As to the whole eye to the telescope thing, read my bio. At least I have one. 5by5
      • Mar 20 2014: Peter Lindsay

        Please limit your comments to the subject. LENR energy is emergent, none of your comments here carry much weight as to why Dennis Bushnell at NASA is wrong in this regards.

        If you can clearly show why LENR energy technology is not emergent, please do so.

        In the meantime, here are two LENR patents for you to study.

        “The present disclosure combines the unique properties of nanotubes and in one embodiment carbon nanotubes, in a novel manifestation designed to meet current and future energy needs in an environmentally friendly way. Devices powered with nanotube based nuclear power systems may substantially change the current state of power distribution.”

        –Retired U.S. Rear Admiral Craig E. Steidle of Seldon Technologies on cold fusion nanotube-based (LENR) nuclear power systems.

        Rear Admiral Craig E. Steidle – USN, NASA, DoD

        Admiral Craig E. Steidle served as the first Associate Administrator of the Office of Exploration Systems at NASA (now known as the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate), an organization formed to implement NASA’s human exploration of the solar system as announced in the Vision for Space Exploration.

        Now, Craig Steidle is on the board of directors of Seldon Technologies, Inc.

        Methods of Generating Energy and/or he-4 Using Graphene Based Materials

        Methods of generating energetic particles using nanotubes and articles thereof

        Ignorance is no excuse for the statements you have been making. Neutrons do play a role in chemistry as do all sub-atomic particles, no?
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2014: As with Mr Walker I would take this conversation more seriously if your profile gave some indication that you are a real person.
      • Mar 20 2014: Bad form sir. Call me at 415 724 6702 I will provide a CA drivers licence for you. Please keep your comments on topic. I ask you to study before commenting and it seems you are incapable of doing so.
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2014: I'm sorry if I cause offense but as someone who has been participating in TED conversations for years it is always the cause of some doubt when you find yourself the only person in a conversation with a completed profile. The whole point of the profile to allow others to evaluate the reliability of the source. As to LENR, I never said it wasn;t emergent, I have just pointed out that it is in its infancy and as yet is not accepted by the greater science community as anything other than an effect that is difficult to reproduce and is as yet impossible to explain. I hope this changes in the near futuer but the last 20 years has brought us no closer.
          Perhaps as an explanation I should point out that there is much history of this forum being used to push a personal barrow of some kind and a standard MO is for a person or people to join as a group or "group" and have a conversation amoungst themselves. That is what makes your profile so important.
      • Mar 20 2014: Hi all

        In reply to peter lindsay on the perfectly valid question of whether people we communicate with are sock puppets.

        I have shown you mine now you show me yours.

        And Profile added.

        Kind regards walker
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2014: Thankyou. If you read my profile you will find that I have been working as a physics teacher for the last 15 years and to add a bit more info, have spent the last 2 years writing text books for the Australian HSCphysics course. My skepticism regarding LENR is born out of many years of experience of new discoveries that don't quite work out how they were supposed to. Nothing would delight me more than the production of a viable energy source based on LENR, but as with hot fusion I have been waiting for a long time now. Maybe I'm just getting old and cranky.
      • Mar 21 2014: Hi all

        In reply to perter lindsay on the subject of scepticism.

        No one said you should stop being sceptical of the subject but in order to be so, you have to read the current literature on the subject presented by those doing the work and weigh up the evidence they present or better yet perform some of the experiments.

        Otherwise it is not scientific scepticism, it is religion.

        At the very least watch the MIT course videos, and visit the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project to see their open science work on the subject. If you want to be sceptical rather than pseudo sceptical, tell them what are the flaws in their experiments and how they could be improved.


        Also consider reading some of the papers.

        Kind Regards walker
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2014: Once again I am concerned that the link goes to a site who's aim is to raise funds to allow replication of an experiment. I don't understand why physicists all over the world aren't doing the experiment off their own bat. If it truly has the potential to revolutionise the energy sector you'd think people would be falling over themselves trying to get involved. With regard to whether my skepticism is science based. I got my science degree from the University of Newcastle, where did you get yours?
      • Mar 21 2014: Hi all

        In reply to peter lindsay on the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project

        It is an open science site. You can look at all of it for free. No requirement to give them money.

        Donations are just that donations, they are as often as not in Kind. Engineering firms and scientific instrument manufacturers and scientists have donated equipment time and expertise. Others don't donate they just read and comment.

        They use their own money and donations of equipment and money and time precisely because of the catch 22 you are stating. If just 0.00005% of the budget spent on hot fusion research was spent on LENR it would pay for thousands of such experiments. Hence why people say LENR research has been suppressed.

        If these people are putting their own money into this rather than sucking on the tax payers tit more power to them.

        On the rather irrelevant matter of who has the biggest academic d**k
        I have a BSc. Combined Honours in Business Information Technology from the University of Westminster. But I have worked on the effects Hydrogen Enbrittlement on certain metals as part of a career in engineering this gives some understanding of the chemistry involved. Although what I did, was everything I could to exclude hydrogen absorption; where as in LENR the idea is to increase Hydrogen absorption to the maximum.

        So I guess if you had done some research in the area of LENR you could claim the longest member prize, but since you have not so far, honours are about even.

        On the matter of commercial use there are about a dozen firms working publicly on bringing LENR to the market all of them self funded. There are also at least half a dozen major multinationals involved in LENR research. They Include: National Instruments, STMicroelectronics S.R.L., Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Elforsk; some like Siemens, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Shell and BP are working in a cloud of NDAs. You just see them turning up at conferences and the odd paper slips through the cracks.

        Kind Regards Walker
        • thumb
          Mar 21 2014: I may be guilty of looking at this through Australian eyes. as down here the vast majority of scientific research is done at government funded establishments like Universities or the CSIRO. So there is no commercial interest to influence the results. I find the relative lack of interest from the major research universities rather intriguing. The involvement of MIT for example goes as far as hosting talks and seminars but they don't fund or do any actual research into the field as far as I can tell.
      • Mar 21 2014: Hi all

        In reply to peter lindsay on the matter of University Research funding.

        The situation is changing over the last two years University funding for LENR/ColdFusion has begun to increase. In main this has been due to the success of the Edisonian approach in using the dry pre loaded Nickel Hydrogen method; pioneered by Rossi, Focardi, Piantelli, and Celani to produce significant results, with an obvious commercial level of output.

        As a result the following universities have small but growing research into LENR and the Fleischmann/Pons excess heat effect: Missouri, Purdue, Illinois, George Washington, Minnesota, Texas, LaVerne, Uppsala, Osaka, Kiev.

        The argument that we should not invest in LENR research because no one has invested in LENR research is a circular one. And only valid for religion not science.

        By the way have you watched the MIT videos yet?

        There will be a colloquium on LENR at MIT. This weekend I think.

        Kind Regards walker
  • Mar 7 2014: I'm still going through your links. One thing I find odd: why is the proposed use a launch vehicle? Seems that LENR's advantage is in constant, cheap and clean power generation, not the huge expenditures of energy in a short time such as is needed to escape gravity wells.

    The topic asked 'good or bad'. I honestly can't think of any 'bad' associated with this breakthrough, unless it turns into another tool to make the rich richer. If I had to pick one organization on the entire planet to give this technology to, NASA would be my first, second and third choice.
    • Mar 7 2014: Yes, to have a clearer title edit it to...NASA LENR Energy is Emergent for Love or War

      Future Strategic Issues - Busnell - makes the point that LENR and permanent expansion into space may alleviate many of the reasons we go to war... and those nano bot swarms? Hey let's just not go there.

      Quote Dennis Bushnell – in http://coldfusionnow.org/real-popular-cold-fusion/

      "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook" NASA pdf is offline

      LENR Energetics

      “… given the truly massive-to-mind boggling benefits – solutions to climate, energy and the limitations that restrict the NASA Mission areas, all of them. The key to space exploration is energetics. The key to supersonic transports and neighbor-friendly personal fly/drive air vehicles is energetics, as simplex examples of the potential implications of this area of research.”

      With that change in energetics, the energy paradigm changes and we begin building an ecologically sustainable society. Evolution Through Cold Fusion http://coldfusionnow.org/evolution-through-cold-fusion/

      "With popular cold fusion – LENR/LENT science we are on the verge of an epic technological advancement. Always there are concurrent personal, social, economic, spiritual, and philosophical advancements, our evolution as a species.

      Our strong survival instinct is now evolving to include each of each other, and all life on the planet, as a whole.

      Sociobiology is the instinctual relationship of a species with both it’s environment and with members of it’s own species. It is theorized that humanity evolved (and is evolving) along lines of empathy and compassion as the strength of cultures that propagate successfully, our own survival of the fittest. Instinct in a species evolves as the species does.

      As humanity’s instincts evolve we gain further insight. We observe interactions amongst ourselves, our universe, and its many components. We gain deeper understanding of cause and effect, it’s benefits and detriments...
  • Apr 6 2014: I enjoyed the discussion. Thank you all.


    It’s of great use to wonder
    Why our minds wander
    In awe of it all

    Being forever true
    Seeking the new

    We are just now discovering
    That which has always been

    Impatiently awaiting us
    Craving our keen attention
    Hoping for deeper understanding

    Awesome is
    The wonder of discovery

    And the power
    Of awe


    Cold Fusion LENR Is

    Cold Fusion LENR energy is…

    Like an ocean wave that is peaceful and powerful!

    Never suffer fools who try to disrupt Its’ path

    Unaffected by any such things as that

    It will roll on and on and on

    Effortlessly and endlessly

    Frothy and foaming

    And bubbling

    Clean energy

    In Its’


    Cold Fusion



  • Apr 4 2014: As this discussion ends another LENR Ted Discussion will begin.

    These subjects will be enjoyned.

    Mahadeva Srinivasan, Ed Esko, The LENR Transmutation of Nuclear Wastes
    Kenneth Kok - Nuclear Waste? Or Resource? - ASME Nuclear Division - International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Nuclear Waste Management
    Ed Esko - Quantum Rabbit Labs - Down the Rabbit Hole…Quantum Physics, Reality, and Cracked Brains - Quantum Leaps of Faith: Part one in a two part series.
    Ed Esko - Quantum Rabbit Labs - Down the Rabbit Hole…Quantum Physics, Reality, and Cracked Brains - Quantum Leaps of Faith: Part two in a two part series.
    Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. - Nuclear Waste Management
    Brown, Cravens, Taylor - Enhanced Alpha Particle Emitter - Ceramic Heating Element
    Liviu Popa-Simil - LENR Patent - Advanced Nuclear Power Research Program Proposal - Harmony in Science and Engineering - Roadmap to Fusion Battery
    SPAWAR Licensing and the Global Energy Corporation - The LENR Genie Reactor: Part one in a three part series.
    SPAWAR Licensing and the Global Energy Corporation - The LENR Genie Reactor: Part two in a three part series.
    SPAWAR Licensing and the Global Energy Corporation - The LENR Genie Reactor: Part three in a three part series.
    • Apr 5 2014: Thanks Gregory for introducing LENR to TED Discussions. I look forward to more LENR discussions and participants. I think 2014-2015 will be very interesting times for LENR. In the meantime I am replaying the MIT IAP course again but at a much slower pace so I can take better notes and cross reference what I'm learning. Best wishes!
  • Apr 3 2014: 5. I would like to know what are the implications of the recent patents awarded to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (awarded in December 2013) and one to U.S. Navy that explicitly mentions LENR as a process to transmute radioactive isotopes into non-radioactive elements - a nuclear process! I have yet to read through them but interested to hear the comments of others. Which brings me to the topic of commercialization. Plainly, if academia refuses to at least consider that LENR is deserving of some additional funding - maybe .5% of the budget that goes towards hot fusion research which even after decades of research is still considered many decades away (don't get me wrong I do consider high energy physics very interesting and these monstrous machines that consume terra-watts of electricity for femtoseconds to oversome the Coulomb barrier are way cool - sorry I mean HOT).... digressing again... then commercialization will determine if LENR will be vindicated. I am very interested in seeing what happens with, among the many enterprises doing more quiet research, Brillouin Energy, Andrei Rossi in Italy (some label him a fraud and a con-man although interestingly Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson thinks there is something of interest with Rossi's E-Cat machine - who by the way is trapped it seems between his invention and the need for openness and his desire to protect his invention in an environment where the USPTO doesn't recognize LENR (except perhaps for Mitsubishi and US Navy mentioned above), the NANOR technology of MIT Mitchell Swartz, Blacklight Power. When these commercial enterprises put their inventions out to 3rd party testing and verification it will be very interesting indeed!

    I hope the impetus for further LENR research will come from the commercial sector since it seems academia can not or will not deliver.
  • Apr 3 2014: 4. One of the original experiments to replicate the Pons and Fleischmann effect was done at CalTech and I believe is referenced as a reason why the USPTO does not grant patents for cold fusion (reason: perpetual motion machine although one could say a hot fusion reactor would be considered the same because it too would be self-sustaining - and that's nonsense). It took years of research and months of preparation for P&F to get their experiments to have excess heat and yet it only took one month (albeit from many institutions) to declare LENR, wrong and dead! I think personally they WANTED IT DEAD! There are many things to consider in regard to these experiments and I am only beginning to come to grips with the possible key areas but one area that was missing was how the Palladium had to loaded with Deuterium. Many at the time were content to declare the experiment a failure when their Palladium was loaded to 85% whereas in experiments that came thereafter it was discovered that the Palladium had to loaded to 90+ percent before any excess heat is observed and that anything less then this would generate absolutely no excess heat. And them comes the question of the structure of the Palladium electrodes. Where did they come from - what is their structure? What micro-defects in the rods contributed or removed the ability to generate excess heat? How fast should the deuterium be loaded? Should the current be ramped, modulated, etc. etc. etc. Honestly this is damn interesting!! Where is the joy of science here? Given the effect I would be fascinated to no end to determine what these variables are. It is like being on a mountain top obscured by clouds and only once in a while Mother Nature opens a tiny patch wherein you can see the magnificent valley below. Anyway, I think at SPAWAR they did some LENR research but loaded the palladium via deuterium codeposition since they were impatient and also AS A RESULT got better and consistent results. Continued..
  • Apr 3 2014: 3, Science works by trial and error - hypothesis, experimentation, results. Theories are created/modified as new research comes in. A successful theory guides scientists into areas of research and a theories "correctness" or utility is enhanced by how much it can explain the current body of observations and PREDICT observations not yet observed. The highly successful nuclear theories have guided nuclear physicists for decades (result fission reactors, nuclear bomb, fusion experiments at National Ignition Facility, ITER, etc.) and so the contradiction with LENR (and I will stay with the more modern term LENR that I happen to I think is in fact a more appropriate term since it seems it is NOT fusion BUT a TYPE of reaction involving nuclear components) - means that LENR MUST BE WRONG. I wonder why in recent times with various LENR theories being circulated (Electron Capture, Widon-Larsen among others) why physicists cannot conceive of alternative (perhaps exotic) non-fusion nuclear pathways that could generate excess heat initiated via a chemical process? I admit at this point it may be I don't properly understand some things but I am willing to express my thoughts and give ammunition for or against LENR! Anway, I am digressing. Science again is advanced through trial and error and we know that it may take hundreds or thousands of experiments (and by many different scientists) to get things right - to have reliable replication and to ensure that all variables are considered and controls implemented. If Pons and Fleischmann got significant excess heat 3 out of 100 times and they knew that their calirometry was set up correctly - and I personally don't doubt that they were quite capable in this regard as electro-chemists - then I think this would be remarkable to anyone indeed! That excitement would drive them to continually ask: why did it work this time but not the other time - what variables are we missing. We know the effect - now consistency... continued...
  • Apr 3 2014: 2. When Pons and Fleischmann announced cold FUSION the hot fusion experts were aghast that two Electro-Chemists (not Physicists) could produce a fusion reaction at room temperature in a glass jar and not at the high temperatures and pressures required by the standard (and I agree highly successful) nuclear model - and with no resulting high energy neutrons (the hallmark of a nuclear reaction), radioactive emissions and NO dead scientists to boot!! It is no wonder the waters were chummed! Well the rest is history - or at least Pons and Fleischmann were (unfortunately) history. OK, so let's get it out in the open, it is not fusion in the conventional sense but happening in a "cold" environment. The claim however that IS important to consider and verify is that the excess energy produced could not apparently be explained by any chemical process and so that left open the possibility the origin was nuclear. It was just too bad they used the holy word "fusion" which can only be spoken by the high energy nuclear physicists. But there was a rush of laboratories all around the world to replicate the experiment. But because the announcement was rushed and the world heard of it from a press release as opposed to the proper protocol of peer review and publication - at what seemed to be at the urging of the University of Utah because of what was happening at BYU - who it seemed eventually did turncoat on them - there wasn't enough explanation on how to replicate the excess heat AND most importantly how difficult it is to prepare the experiment AND that the observation is in fact hard to replicate. Rather than concentrate on what the observations were when the experiment did work and to acknowledge if it is true that it would be extraordinary and worthy of further research - the experiments were declared false AND WORSE, Pons and Fleischmann were personally attacked for possibly committing fraud or at the very least being delusional. Why the problems? ... continued...
  • Apr 3 2014: 1. You would think that science in it's purest form would be the pursuit of truth and that the very joy of learning about this magnificent universe would be the main driving force. I'm sure it is so for the majority of scientists but it is also shrouded in politics, defending your pet ideas, maintaining stature among peers and ensuring the inflow of the ever so important grant money! In academia I have experienced my share of great and caring professors and some of the most arrogant S*Bs around - who hasn't. The point is that this is the arena that LENR is battling with main stream scientific culture, How can one say your work has not been properly peer reviewed but our respected journal will never peer review your pathological science? There appears no desire to seek the truth here, to unlock what could be a beautiful jewel of nature but rather we have two opposing points of view facing opposite directions. This is a malady and doesn't expand our knowledge and I daresay if LENR is validated would have set humannkind back decades - where would be have been today if scientist could have conducted research, in the open, without fear of losing their tenure or funding. Peter Hagelstein of MIT half jokingly but with a serious (and I might add sad) realization warned that you could lose your career if you pursue LENR. The summarized point here is that in my humble opinion LENR if it is true is of too high importance for humankind to DISMISS OUT OF HAND and that it has, contrary to popular belief, not been given a level playing field. It seems that the work done at SPAWAR, SRI and many other institutions shows that SOMETHING interesting and replicatable is happening.

    Jeez, I guess in writing these entries I have more than 2 cents to add.... continued....
    • Apr 3 2014: The most advanced LENR developments, proceed prior 2007, from US labs.

      Seeking full disclosure, future historians will place a lens to this and do better than you or I.

      This is one of the first Ted Discussions on LENR. I hope one of the top Ted Talkers does this subject justice soon.

      The internet has provided a method for everyone to be peer reviewed, thankfully it came along in time for the early cold fusiioners to publish in spite of it all.

      I am fifty six with no university education. I read hundreds of scientific abstracts a months, arts of interest, an abstract education. I am sure even my writings are being peer reviewed, go figure.

      The LENR Ted Discussion (even better yet a Talk) is very important to me and my hope is that those more skilled than I will carry it on in this forum.

      Time is nearly up on this discussion, thanks.

      Brian Ho touched on the heart of the matter,

      "You would think that science in it's purest form would be the pursuit of truth and that the very joy of learning about this magnificent universe would be the main driving force."

      I would say I agree with him, it is the main driving force. In light of his comment I'd like to share.


      "LENR the Debutante at the Ball".

      "Evolution Through Cold Fusion"
  • Mar 27 2014: Yoshino's Slides from the MIT conference; presenting the work of Dr. Tadahiko Mizuno of the Department of Nuclear Engineering, Hokkaido National University, Japan:
    Translated By Jed Rothwell

    Peter Lindsay you should look at this ditto everyone else.

    Kind Regards walker
  • Mar 27 2014: This paper is worth studying in its' entirety, it has correlations found within the low energy nuclear reactive environment. As LENR science matures many arts of science are seen as pertinent to the field. This paper states, "That which is not yet quantitatively understood... present further challenges."

    Also see Sweet Search: A Search Engine For Students

    Many-body Quantum Reaction Dynamics near the Fusion Barrier
    M. Dasgupta, D.H. Luong, D.J. Hinde, and M. Evers - Department of Nuclear Physics, RSPE, Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia http://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/abs/2014/03/epjconf_inpc2013_01003/epjconf_inpc2013_01003.html

    Abstract. The understanding of quantum effects in determining nuclear reaction outcomes is evolving as improved experimental techniques reveal new facets of interaction dynamics. Whilst the phenomenon of coupling-enhanced quantum tunnelling is understood to arise due to quantum superposition, the observed inhibition of fusion at energies well below the barrier is not yet quantitatively understood. Collisions involving weakly-bound nuclei, which have low energy thresholds against breakup, present further challenges. Recent coincidence measurements for reactions of weakly bound stable nuclei have not only provided a complete picture of the physical mechanisms triggering breakup, but have also shown how information on reaction dynamics occurring on time-scales of zepto-seconds can be obtained experimentally. These new experimental findings demand major developments in quantum models of near-barrier nuclear reactions.
  • Mar 26 2014: Cold Fusion, the Titanic Disaster Aftermath, and the Internet – by Jed Rothwell

    “. . . the sea is the place permanently to honor our dead; this should be the occasion for a new birth of vigilance, and future generations must accord to this event a crowning motive for better things.” Senator William Alden Smith, principal American investigator of the Titanic Disaster

    “We want a new birth of vigilance in physics today. The quiet catastrophe we have lived through with cold fusion has been nothing like the Titanic disaster. No one has drowned, or been hurt. At worst, people’s careers have been derailed and their reputations sullied. Yet if it turns out that cold fusion can be made into a practical source of cheap energy, then the consequences of the twelve-year delay in launching serious, large scale research will turn out to be worse than the Titanic disaster.”

    “During the twelve-year hiatus, more people may have perished for lack of energy and clean water than ever drowned in shipwrecks. If we prevail in this fight for cold fusion, we must strive to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, at least for a few generations, until the shock wears off.” Jed Rothwell

    3d nano printing with zirconium ceramic or carbon, or creating engineered structures with bent graphene nanotubes comes into play. Specific geometrical architecture supporting LENR environments are most likely better than random surface morphology such as cracks, sputtering, or codepositation creates. Maybe it is just basic physics as Dr. Schwartz states, no magic, just an understanding of the itsy bitsy tiny spaces, perhaps best described as in old, as that which makes up a ‘molecular cyclotron’. (magnetic bipole alignments and angles of harmonic energy excitations are considerate) Solid State, Thermo/Peizo Electric and Plasmonic Arts
  • Mar 25 2014: Hi all

    Along with NASA and the US Navy the US DOE is now funding research into LENR.

    This is along with funds from the European Union and several academic institutions.

    The government funding is dwarfed by private funding of LENR research. Rossi Secured 10s of millions of research funding with Cherokee Investment. Celani is being funded by STMicroelectronics S.R.L National Instruments CEO made LENR research the company's top priority and they have been giving aid to LENR research projects round the world. Sydney Kimmel is funding research at Missouri others are funding research in Texas, Idaho and the Japanese are funding a lot of LENR research both Kyoto and at labs around the country.

    In all honesty it looks like the genie is out of the bottle and Cold Fusion/LENR research is experiencing a renaissance.

    Kind Regards walker
  • Mar 21 2014: Gregory Goble to Peter Lindsay,

    The next comment by you may reflect that you, quote "are never satisfied" or "are worried about something in your life" or "you are lucky enough to have leisure time" end quote - From your profile page. http://www.ted.com/profiles/1222387

    I forgo profile pages cause they are often not verifiable. Call me on the phone, we will connect and challenge the verification of each other then, YES?

    Listen up, study, and contribute to the subject of LENR. Links provided take hours upon hours to review. You are new to this subject, presently presented. Your understanding of it is behind the times.

    I still seek a meaningful discussion with you about the body of this article, nothing here needs proving by anyone here to you. These LENR works are advancing as such, please study them and then comment. I look forward to meaningful and knowledgeable discussions on this subject matter.

    All your comments are transposed to my records for future publication and peer review, Please keep in mind, anything published, by any means today (by you, me, or anyone) is subject to peer review. No one needs approval to publish. Please peer review all my written material.

    Three, yes only three Ted Talks converse on this subject. My next Ted discussion will have clear rules of engagement, You must be introspective of your comments on the state of LENR science, subject educated, and on point to participate.

    Nothing less will be useful to the conversation. I am not here too just spin my wheels, with you, or anyone, in this regards.

    The limited physics of the '80's 90's is only peripherally pertinent to our dialog and I am too busy educating myself to assist you in this endeavor. You must take that task upon yourself before commenting further in any discussion posted.

    Any comment that does not show up to date knowledge of the subject at hand will be flagged as inappropriate by me.

    Be forewarned, contribute with knowledge or you may rue your comment lines. NO?
  • Mar 10 2014: I like the cargo ship application for the LENR propulsion system. I don't like the application designed for the winged transport, it doesn't seem well thought out. I understand the need for speed but this motor application at high velocity is seemingly a nuclear missile. A cheaper alternative to reconfiguring existing fleets with new motors to "green" the airline industry is noble but not with this motor. I would prefer that cargo ship fleets which use heavy oil and produce a lot of particulate matter be the first application of this technology. I suggest that "blimp", or "airship's" made of carbon fiber and fly at higher altitudes than WWII models be considered. The whole thing could collapse into the platform above the containers locked into each other like a lego set and malfuntionioning motors can be jettisoned over the ocean. Think quad drones except in a size comparable to moving a lot of containers. Blimps would also eliminate the need for coastal ports and make inland ports doable like food aid to Africa affordable. Some large retailers could also move goods inland at lower costs than being dependent on 2nd tier transports, like trains and tractor trailers. The airship with LENR motors and inland ports would disrupt the current logistics for moving goods with the smallest of carbon foot prints.
    • Mar 11 2014: Excellent. Inland access without 2nd tier transport, independent of coastal ports. Blimps would not require long runways, yet they would require landing facilities. LENR power to electric motors would fit the key.
    • Apr 3 2014: Dino, I would push for railroad locomotives first. They are already electric engines and would simply need to replace the desil generators with LENR ones.
  • Mar 6 2014: Its interesting that you have all these links but have no mention of Andre Rossi and his e-cat, which is where NASA got the concept from. Dennis Bushnell in particular has been involved with Rossi. I've seen several of NASA's recent articles and they never mention Rossi. I'd really like to know what they have either seen or not seen in Rossi that leads to such blacklisting.

    Rossi is such an interesting person: Claims to have busted the LENR problem wide open but since no one can figure out the exact physics involved he is pursuing production of units instead of patents. Very secretive, rather excentric and possibly a con man, yet no one can seem to explain what he gains from his 'con'. Has very passionate trolls stalking every article about him (Mary Yugo for example), so much so that the trolls seem to have an agenda of their own. Former supporters and business partners disparage Rossi... then create their own businesses making the exact same product Rossi is building.

    Anyway, in case you are not familiar with Rossi, here's a link to the online journal he has been keeping for the past 3 years or so. You'll find references to all of the work in your links buried in there.


    P.S. Man, I hope Rossi has found something. It would be as big a leap as a functioning Warp Drive would be.
  • Apr 6 2014: With the air ship being a floating platform NASA could enjoy deep space launches as well as private companies. The private companies could mine the moon or other celestial body. Imagine a new mineral that yet is to be discovered that is stronger and lighter than carbon manipulation or can withstand enormous heat and cold. Think that mach twenty goal. ETC. A floating sky station would solve for the immense energy used to jettison from the ground past our atmosphere. The weightlessness of the moon's gravity and the little energy it would take using the LENR making it possible for larger than industrial size containers to lift off the moon, stay in Earth's orbit so smaller cargo explorers could work about lifting from the cargo container onto the floating platform, kept aloft and stabilized by LENR propulsion engines. The cargo explorers could be all electric getting their power from the sky station because of the proximity between the moon space cargo ship and the airship. It would utilize just in time mining from the platform or the whole airship could descend with the precious ore cargo. The Airships could also be used by NASA as deep space observatories floating at the edge of the atmosphere or provide consistent internet access for rural, (pick a third world country) for free if the a consortium of governments or corporations wants to add to the NASA Floating Airship Deck. Put three of the newest super container ships together and see if the physics is correct to build an airship using LENR. That would make for a good return on its investment. NASA could manage the design and technicalities and private business could make it profitable. In fact Airships could be cargo platforms and landing strips for passengers going and coming from workcamps on the moon or traveling between continents.Airplanes would only be used to get to a platform and the platform would travel to an approximate location and the airplane disembark. No more transpacific 1 shots. It could happen
  • Apr 6 2014: History

    After that bit of prose... Look and see,

    "LENR Nuclear Remediation Science and Research Goes Way Back"

    Scientific Basis for Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) for Nuclear Waste Amelioration
    Technical Paper1999-08-02
    Georg. H. Miley, Mari. A. Okuniewski, Andy Tate, Jame. A. Patterson
    Two alternative methods are currently under evaluation by the Department of Energy to handle high-level nuclear wastes: deep storage at Yucca Mountain and particle induced transmutation, typically utilizing neutrons via a proton accelerator-target facility [1]. While the transmutation approach is favored in that the net radioactivity is reduced in the process, the great expense involved in an accelerator facility forces consideration of the more economical storage approach. Consequently, alternative methods to carry out transmutation treatment are being sought. One novel alternative method involves an electrolytic process initially investigated by J. Patterson [2]. Other studies have also demonstrated the possibility of utilizing related electrolytic methods for conducting radioactive amelioration [3]. However, before a complete evaluation is possible, additional research is necessary to verify and optimize these previous experiments. This presentation will review studies conducted by Miley et al. [4-5] and by Okuniewski et al. [6], including experiments and results, possible mechanisms involved, energy balance issues, and key issues to be addressed in the continuing evaluation of this approach.
  • Apr 6 2014: Prologue to the next discussion: The nuclear industry is best served by utilizing waste, transmuting it to benign elements while delivering high process steam for the turbines through a LENR process, thereby cleaning up their legacy. Is nuclear waste a liability or a resource?
    According to Kennoth Kok, waste can meet our energy needs for thousands of years. We can prevent a nuclear industry collapse through Gen 5 LENR technology. This will also end the expense and hazard of mining and processing uranium. Multiple development groups are notable.

    ‘Clean’ Nuclear Power Eyed, Variety News - 13 FEB. 2012
    The GEC board of directors, Khim says, includes some well-known Washington D.C. Players, including former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, former Congressman and Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, and former U.S. Congressman Tom Davis, among others. Global Energy Corp. is proposing to build a 50-megawatt plant. Khim says he will finance the estimated $250 million plant himself.
    On one side is Mahadeva Srinivasan, a key developer of India's first nuclear test and chairman of ICCF-16, and Padmanabha Krishnagopala Iyengar, co-chairman of ICCF-16, former director of BARC, and former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/EskoIE104.pdf
    Patents: Enhanced Alpha Particle Emitter - US8303865 B1
    Ceramic Heating Element - US 20130276770 A1
    Advanced Nuclear Power Research Program Proposal http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120621131512/http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/comments/attachments/adnucp.pdf
  • Apr 5 2014: Watch TED Talks Michael Specter on "The danger of science denial". About science in general.
  • Apr 4 2014: That's a way to smart idea to have happen. I had thought I had read that GE was looking at doing that idea but no other information was forthcoming. It's funny but the airship transport idea has so captured my imagination I see massive floating barges capable of carrying loads the size of small European cities across the globe. I imagine not seeing these massive machines until they descend from the atmosphere.

    It really makes more sense that big transport companies could lift the cargo straight from the factory ascend to 45000feet and be across the globe in 5 hours which would have taken days to execute. Unfortunately it also eliminates about 11000 jobs that depended on moving the cargo from mfg to ship yard and then the employees of that ecosystem would also be impacted. Imagine ore mined in Australia airshipped to china or the US. Or ore in Chile going directly to the US for a mfg resurgence. It will change how we understand logistics.

    Did you go through the entire LENR talk ? I I actually went through the entire program posted and really fell in love with that concept for LENR. I've done some periphery indoctrination on the current nuclear economy and think a LENR Cargo Airship a real good use of that propulsion engine.
    • Apr 5 2014: The application of LENR to solve the world's energy problems is one thing (well, one BIG thing) but I am very interested in the application of LENR to aeronautical engineering AND space travel. The high energy density of LENR and I imagine the thrust/fuel ratio is why NASA is so interested in this. Looking forward to what comes out of NASA. [Also curious why SPAWAR stopped LENR after the great research they did. Skeptics will say "see, it doesn't work"! Or maybe instead....]
      • Apr 5 2014: It is the stated goal of NASA to enable private industry to dwarf governmental space programs. They are well on the way to that goals successful implementation. Chemical rocketry cannot attain the industrialization of space expansion to asteroids, then Mars colonization, LENR energy and electric ion rocket drives can. I have never once believed that SPAWAR ended LENR research, no matter what they said. Future investigative journalists will certainly ferret the facts for us.

        LENR NASA Series Cold Fusion Now

        SpaceWorks LENR Space Planes http://www.spaceworksengineering.com/revolutionary-technologies.shtml

        Planetary Resources Inc http://www.planetaryresources.com/

        Deep Space Industries http://deepspaceindustries.com/

        Space X http://www.spacex.com/

        Peter Diamandis http://www.diamandis.com/

        Elon Musk http://elonmusk.com/

        Rick N. Tumlinson http://www.ricktumlinson.com/
        • Apr 5 2014: EXACTLY, Gregory. NASA is interested in how to get into space in the most effective manner which is why they explore ALL technologies.
      • Apr 6 2014: Brian I think the era of huge energy outputs is similar to a car phone which looked like MaBells and was hardwired into the vehicle. Voltaic on every rooftop will be the standard and high energy outputs will be phased out. We will pay for access and to put our captured energy back into the grid but electricity will become free like airwaves. The US government might be interested in buying all the high energy outputs Nuclear and coal or nationalize them while the voltaic conversion for every rooftop is complete. It seems the only answer to getting everyone on the the same page and opening a new era to the idea of free electricity.
  • Apr 3 2014: The University of Northern Iowa Presents LENR The Promise of Clean and Affordable Energy - Thomas A. Wind


    “LENR: The Promise of clean and affordable Energy” at University of Northern Iowa
  • Apr 3 2014: Hello everyone,

    First of all I am pleased to see that at the very least there is a conversation on TED regarding LENR. I look forward to the day when this is followed up with a TED talk! By way of introduction I received a BS in Electrical Engineering from the University of Hawaii. Now, this does not qualify me as an expert on the subject of LENR by any stretch of the imagination but I hope to convey that I at least have a semi-functional brain and realize the importance of the scientific method, protocol, the need for replication in independent laboratories and peer review, etc. That said,like many people I was very interested in the cold fusion announcement by Pons and Fleischmann back in 1989. But then after the whole fiasco - and there appears to have been mistakes on both sides - I lost interest in it and left it at that. Throughout the years I would periodically search for the topic of cold fusion to see what was happening but I wasn't taken up by the cause. It was only recently when I saw the MIT IAP course (I realize not a formal course) back in January 2014 and the recent MIT Colloquiumin March 2014 that I became interested in the subject again. I am only starting to examine all the papers and discussions I can get my hands on to see what is really happening here - and taking stock of my knowledge of basic chemistry and physics again. I must confess on the onset that I WANT IT TO BE TRUE - so perhaps my pursuit of the truth is already distorted. If LENR is true then not only would it expose another fascinating side of Mother Nature (and who doesn't enjoy surprises) but the ramifications of unlimited, free, greenhouse gas-less energy is too profound. I believe this technology if true would be what would allow mankind to finally leave the planet.

    Anyway I wanted to make 2 points...... continued....
    • Apr 3 2014: Brian Ho,

      Thank you for your points well taken... to be continued, I''m sure.

      Here is an analysis of who is taking a look at cold fusion/LENR research. Many folks, just like you, are revisiting this art of science.

      The Future May be Better than You Think - by Jed Rothwell

      17th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2012. Daejeon, Korea.

      Cold fusion researchers are prone to be unduly pessimistic about the potential for cold fusion. They know too much; they are too close to the problem. They may also have unexamined assumptions. Researchers feel put-upon because of political opposition.

      The LENR-CANR.org website log file proves there is a great deal of interest in this field. There is broad, untapped, latent support for it. The log shows that every week scientists and engineers download thousands of papers on cold fusion.

      Cold fusion is even more promising than many researchers realize. Many researchers fail to see, for example, that not only will it reduce the cost of energy; it will also reduce the cost of machines such as generators and water heaters. Researchers are also unaware that there is widespread interest in cold fusion.
      • Apr 3 2014: Thanks Gregory for the link to the pdf. Jed Rothwell's lenr.canr.org website has been a great source of information!
  • thumb
    Mar 27 2014: You would think an online community with over 200,000 regular users would take more interest in this conversation.