TED Conversations

Gregory Goble

NA, NA

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
https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p1zygzm2h3i/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

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
http://www.spaceworksengineering.com/revolutionary-technologies.shtml

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.

Share:

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.
http://sc.sajai.com/search.php?searchsite=tot&keyword=LENR
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

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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.
        http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cold-fusion-101-video-lectures/
        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.

          http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

          It is confirmed with less violence by Charles Beaudette in "Excess Heat"
          http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

          if you doubt Morrison was incompeten tou can find the debunking of his claims here:
          http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

          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.
          http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/71632

          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:
        http://www.researchgate.net/publication/244091511_Isoperibolic_calorimetry_on_modified_fleischmann-pons_cells

        ***
        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.

        http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237260147_Helium_production_during_the_electrolysis_of_D2O_in_cold_fusion_experiments

        ***
        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
        http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225920185_Preliminary_investigation_of_possible_low-temperature_fusion

        There are several lists of peer reviewed LENR/Cold Fusion papers on the web, Google is your friend here! those above came from here
        http://www.researchgate.net/publication/253470031_Tally_of_Cold_Fusion_Papers

        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:
        http://www.researchgate.net/publication/253470031_Tally_of_Cold_Fusion_Papers

        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:
        http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1097

        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
          http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchieste/documenti/letteraSCIENCE001.pdf

          see that paper by Pam Boss (who published in mid-impact magazine dozens of times)
          http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedk.pdf#page=6
          "Abstract
          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"
        http://www.ans.org/pubs/transactions/

        and the "Japanese Journal of Applied Physics"
        http://jjap.jsap.jp/

        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.
          http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/
          http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals
          beside some past tragedy
          http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html


          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
        http://www.google.com/patents/EP2656350A1?cl=en&dq=Methods+of+Generating+Energy+and/or+he-4+Using+Graphene+Based+Materials&hl=en&sa=X&ei=b5IhU7nWCsjc2QXswYD4Ag&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA

        Methods of generating energetic particles using nanotubes and articles thereof
        http://www.google.com/patents/US20130266106?dq=Methods+of+Generating+Energetic+Particles+Using+Nanotubes+and+Articles+Thereof&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2ZIhU6L6A6LE2wXew4DoDA&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ

        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.
        https://www.facebook.com/gbgoble
        • 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.
        https://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140

        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.

        http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/

        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

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.