LENR, Rossi and the ECAT Thread pt 2 (merged)

[vision-master]

Sounds like you are speaking from a script? I see lot's of negative emotional language used. Are you an academic by chance?

[Rune]

I think Focardi, Widom, Larsen, Rossi, Defkalion, McKubre, Miley and other crooks should go back to school.

You forgot the University of Missouri. It needs to read Huizenga's book too.

MU research chief wants 'cold fusion' puzzle solved

Rather than squabbling over the merits of studying cold fusion or jumping to the conclusion that excess heat produced at room temperature is a nuclear reaction, the scientific community needs to back up — all the way to the top of the scientific method.

That’s the opinion of Rob Duncan, vice chancellor of research at the University of Missouri. He is in the early stages of pitching a plan to establish a national research program that would help scientists study tabletop energy.

Scientists for years have been using different methodologies to create excess heat in the lab without using a lot of energy. Once dubbed “cold fusion” and famously observed in the 1980s by Utah researchers Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, some now refer to the process as a low-energy nuclear reaction, or LENR.

LENR research has the potential to solve climate and energy problems, Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist of NASA’s Langley Research Center, said in a June interview with EV World, a sustainability publication.

Before it can be labeled, though, scientists need a better understanding of it, Duncan said.

“The biggest problem in this whole area is that everyone is trying to say what the origin of effect is,” he said. “What we’ve got are different camps convinced it’s either fusion or LENR or some type of new enhanced chemical effect. We just don’t have an understanding in the physics yet. … We need to slow down and do careful scientific inquiry.”

So does the Defense Industry:

“Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical…” –Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center

Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) using nickel and hydrogen is a clean, very very cheap, and super abundant new energy technology. It would be fair to say that it is the silver bullet for our current continual energy crisis – and as a consequence sounds too good to be true.

In November of 2009 the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) published Defense Analysis Report DIA 8-0911-003 titled “Technological Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance” ( http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Barnha ... nology.pdf ).

Oh, if only the defense industry would read PO.com!

[Ferretlover]

So should Tom Whipple: The Peak Oil Crisis: The Quantum Fusion Hypothesis by Tom Whipple

In recent months numerous respected scientists have been reporting at scientific gatherings that they are seeing increasing amounts of heat, which can only be coming from nuclear reactions, during experiments with hydrogen loaded into nickel and palladium under the proper conditions.
There have been so many of these reports by reliable and respected scientists that it has become absurd to claim that the phenomenon is fraudulent or that all these scientists are mistaken in their observations.

Of course, believing absurd things is nothing new Text deleted.

[diemos]

Outstanding!

Wake me when I can buy one at home depot.

Wake me when there is even a single end user in the world willing to take a camera crew down to the basement and show me their cold fusion generator.

Wake me when one of these people hands a unit over for independent testing and it runs for more than 6 hours.

Wake me when one of these entrepreneurs has the idea to hook one of their gizmos to the grid and get paid for their free energy.

[Ferretlover]

Wake yourself up. It's a chore to rouse Text deletd..

[Ferretlover]

Text deleted.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... llist.html

[diemos]

If only press releases could be harnessed as a source of energy the LENR community would have all our problems solved!

[Cog]

Carhole ignores the question. Where is a LENR device that I can buy to heat my home?

Its a legit question that he continues to avoid.

Course if I were supporting a scam, I might be reluctant to answer that question as well.

[Sludge]

What about that open source thing? Doesn't that blow all this wide open?

It's possible that it's a mistake and wrong, but no scammer would tell you how to replicate what they're doing, and if people replicate we'll find out soon enough what the deal is.

[Rune]

Carhole ignores the question. Where is a LENR device that I can buy to heat my home?

Its a legit question that he continues to avoid.

Course if I were supporting a scam, I might be reluctant to answer that question as well.

You ignore the fact that this is an unfolding story and that we are WAY before the time of Home Depot.

If LENR devices were available at Home Depot now, there wouldn't be a thread to bitch about. You would log off and PO.com would shut down.

But its an unfolding story and we follow it here (for the billionth time!).

I bet you still don't understand this simple idea.

[Keith_McClary]

If your roof is splattered with pig poop they will come up with a theory to explain it.

You, on the other hand, would leave the observed phenomena unexplained? Figures.

Theory: "Assuming pigs can fly, it follows that ..."

[Keith_McClary]

LENR-CANR.org

All these scientific papers in support of LENR/Cold Fusion are free and available for download at the link.

Click on "Year" twice to put the list in order and then scroll down to see how many scientists there are and the CF/LENR conferences and workshops where they publish their scientific papers.

[Alcassin]

Keith, thank you!
That list is beyond ludicrous. PowerPoint slides, press conferences, and their own conferences build up a core of messy bibliography which would be easily rejected by any scientific body as a source. Conferences which don't provide peer review are looking like mutual admiration society. Really, press conference of Defkalion is not only laughable, it's humiliating.

And now a list why cold fusion should be called cold fusion (not LENR, CANR - which only give more "scientific sound" to the proposed claims), and why cold fusion as a theory smells and looks like pseudoscience:
1. No verification of the claimed phenomenon.
2. No workable theory which would be complementary to the nuclear physics.
3. No workable theory which would change the known laws of physics.
4. No results for years since the first claims.
5. Exaggeration in almost every piece of news.
6. People from academia who backed it are almost always backpedaling.
7. Because of 2 and 3 there is no answer about the easiest parts of the nuclear physics: energy level, temperature, velocity, and effects like gamma radiation, alpha radiation and so on...
8. Argument from authority is one the most abused tools of sophistry.
9. Most people who adore voodoo science are the ones making the biggest spins about it. While this argument isn't strong I would be very suspicious about things provided by lunatics who have long history of promoting junk. That's from the start.
10. No real independent testing.

Now why it looks like a scam:
1. Huge claims by the "producers" to provide a device.
2. All deadlines has passed.
3. Fairy tales about highly super-advanced technologically enhanced intelligent nanorobotic factories.
4. Very, I mean VERY suspicious model of marketing. Like licensing the device, and not product like electricity or heat which can be easily transferred.
5. Shady financial structures, no corporate investor but the sound of their enterprises are huge "Defkalion Green Technologies", "Leonardo Corporation" or "Lattice Energy".
6. Problems with patents. I don't even know whether they tried to patent it.

That's all. Sleep well, Carl, take your arguments from authorities back and you will see your posts pointless.

@VM, no matter what my profession is, I have accustomed to sincerity. When I see a thief I don't call him a business operator.

Nothing here is to unfold but junk.

[Rune]

A Student's Guide To Cold Fusion (pdf) by Dr. Edmund Storms

Updated April 2012

Although I offer the LENR process as a real and reproducible effect, albeit with difficulty, not all observed heat energy can be attributed to a nuclear reaction. Unexpected and significant chemical sources do exist and can confuse the conclusions. Energy can only be attributed to LENR if a nuclear product is detected or if the energy greatly exceeds production from any plausible chemical source. These requirements have been met on many occasions but not in every published experiment.

Before discussing the mechanism, you need to believe the observations are not the result of error, wishful thinking, or artifacts, as skeptics frequently imply. You can easily verify for yourself which laboratories throughout the world have demonstrated the behavior simply by searching the LIBRARY section of LENR-CANR.org or reading my book[1].

The popular conclusion that the effect has not been replicated is not true and this fact has been ignored since 1991. A more accurate statement is: Replication is possible but difficult and not likely to succeed without considerable effort, knowledge, and luck. Like all poorly understood and difficult studies, failure results because of ignorance, not because the claim is impossible. This simple fact seems difficult for some people to accept.

This quick overview provides basic information about LENR for a casual student. More details will be added in later chapters. The goal is to demonstrate the existence of a real phenomenon having many similar behaviors. Making sense of these behaviors has not been easy because this has required a basic change in how nature is viewed, especially by people trained in physics. Part of my goal is to paint a simplified picture into which plausible mechanisms might fit, to show why many mechanisms do not fit this picture, and to suggest a mechanism that might actually explain the behavior.

Edmund Storms obtained a Ph.D. in radiochemistry from Washington University (St. Louis) and is retired from the Los Alamos National Laboratory after thirty-four years of service. His work there involved basic research in the field of high temperature chemistry as applied to materials used in nuclear power and propulsion reactors, including studies of the "cold fusion" effect. Over seventy reviewed publications and monographs resulted from this work as well as several books, all describing an assortment of material properties. He presently lives in Santa Fe where he is investigating the "cold fusion" effect in his own laboratory.

Yeah, Dr. Storms needs to read "Fundamentals Of Nuclear Physics" too.

It's a good guide. Free for download, up-to-date and designed for someone who has not studied nuclear physics but who wants to understand current thinking on LENR and the underlying processes that may be at work.

[Rune]

Tally of papers at LENR-CANR.org (2009)

Thousands of newspaper articles about cold fusion have been published, but we have added only 58. These have technical, scientific or historic significance. Storms added these items in order to reference them while writing books and papers, which was the original purpose of the database, and the customary purpose of the EndNote program. Most were written by Jerry Bishop (Wall Street Journal) or William Broad (New York Times). We added only 9 newspaper articles after 1994, even though hundreds were published, especially in 2008 and 2009. The database includes 69 papers from Infinite Energy magazine, which is a small fraction of the total papers published there. Many papers in Infinite Energy are not directly related to cold fusion, and others we simply neglected to add.

There are 695 full text papers available for download at LENR-CANR.org. They are not representative of the full set of papers in the literature, or in our database. They skew toward informal sources such as conference proceedings, because these papers have fewer copyright restrictions. Compared to papers in the database, the full text papers include more mass media newspaper and magazine articles, and more papers for the layman.

The selection of papers at LENR-CANR.org is somewhat haphazard because the authors decide what they want us to upload. LENR-CANR.org is a library, not a journal. It is not selective. We do not endorse a paper by uploading it. We accept papers from harsh critics of the field as well as supporters. We accept both research papers and mass media articles. In most cases we will accept any paper that has been published in a conference proceedings, journal or magazine. We have imposed some selectivity by asking leading authors to contribute papers. Several of them did not wish to, and some were told by their publishers that it would violate copyright restrictions, so there are gaps in the collection. We urge readers who are seriously
interested in this topic to read books about cold fusion and original source papers in a university library.

Alcassin had asked for one paper which I gave - the one by Widom-Larsen. I could have also given him Y.E Kim's recent paper, Nuclear Reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles Yeong E. Kim, Department of Physics, Purdue University.

...or papers by Takahashi and some others. But like Jed Rothwell declared, "Several of them did not wish to [upload their papers], and some were told by their publishers that it would violate copyright restrictions, so there are gaps in the collection. We urge readers who are seriously interested in this topic to read books about cold fusion and original source papers in a university library."

I gave two books which surveyed the field, one expensive and thorough, the other free and a few years old. If you wanted to, you could take a trip to a technical library and discover those papers that are not included in LENR-CANR.org due to copyright restrictions and whatnot.

But this is the internet and I gave the best sources I could that were convenient and easy to access.

[Rune]

A Student's Guide To Cold Fusion (pdf) by Dr. Edmund Storms

Updated April 2012

SUMMARY
Two assumptions are made: All LENR occurs in the same environment and by the same mechanism, and the environment and mechanism must not conflict with known chemical behavior or each other. Elimination of all environments that conflict with these assumptions and identification of the only environment common to all methods for producing LENR results in the following conclusions:
1. A special environment is required for LENR to occur and this is not a material such as PdD or NiH, regardless of its purity, dimension, or hydrogen content.
2. A closed crack, void or gap of critical size and shape is the only condition potentially common to all methods for causing LENR. This gap may have the form of a nanotube made from various materials including carbon.
3. The mechanism for lowering the Coulomb barrier involves a single electron that is absorbed by the fusion process and remains for a short time in the resulting product, after which it is emitted as a weak beta.
4. The fusion process results from resonance, which releases the resulting energy as X-rays over a short period of time.
5. All isotopes of hydrogen can produce LENR, which results in fusion and transmutation.
6. Heat is mostly generated by D+D+e fusion to give He4+e when deuterium is used and H+H+e fusion to give stable deuterium when normal hydrogen is used. When both isotopes are present, tritium is formed by the D+H+e fusion reaction.
7. LENR occasionally involves addition of hydrogen isotopes to heavy nuclei, resulting in transmutation at an active site. This reaction does not absorb an electron.
8. Detectable radiation and radioactive isotopes are occasionally produced, but are not common.
9. Several nuclear mechanisms besides LENR can operate within solid materials. These are sensitive to the chemical conditions, including hot fusion-type reactions when applied energy is low.
10. Successful theory requires a marriage between physics and chemistry, and a compatible relationship between the NAE and the mechanism operating within the NAE.
11. Unreasonable skepticism and rejection of competent observation has severely handicapped the field and delayed understanding and application.

Some of these conclusions are significantly different from conventional beliefs in the field and are well outside of what conventional physics can presently explain or justify. As a student, your job is to decide which assumptions and conclusions are correct based on past and future studies. The conclusions are offered as a guide to future studies.

[Rune]

A Student's Guide To Cold Fusion (pdf) by Dr. Edmund Storms

Updated April 2012

COMMENT
Science has been successful because certain rules of evidence were adopted centuries ago, the so-called Scientific Method. These rules require that many people using different devices duplicate all novel observations. Such replications reduce the human tendency to deceive and to be deceived. In addition, the behavior observed in these various studies must show similar patterns, i.e. important variables must have the same effect in all studies, regardless of the equipment used.

Having an explanation for a strange behavior is NOT initially necessary, although eventual discovery of an explanation is important. This is a good method and has served mankind well when it is faithfully applied. Science fails when these rules are ignored. They can be ignored several different ways, the most obvious being premature acceptance. Some scientists think premature acceptance is so damaging that they base their careers on protecting Science from such a violation. A less obvious problem occurs when evidence is ignored because a scientist does not WANT to believe results that conflict with a favorite theory.

Initially, cold fusion was rejected for the former reason. Now rejection is based on the latter. The first rejection was valid and consistent with the Scientific Method. The present rejection is not. Skepticism, when carried to extreme, is as damaging as naive acceptance. At the present time, many people respect the skeptic for guarding the high ideals of science. Unfortunately, skeptics frequently cause much more harm by stopping progress, stifling originality, and turning creative people away from science altogether. Although many examples of this injury can be cited from many fields of science, the continued rejection of LENR is particularly egregious because of its vehement nature and the importance of the discovery.

I ask you, the reader, to use good judgment and a responsible attitude in evaluating the novel claims described in this Guide. Remember that new and strange claims do not have to be blindly accepted or blindly rejected, but only explored with an
open mind. Important new ideas always conflict with conventional understanding. Such conflict should not be used as a basis for outright rejection before the possibilities have been carefully examined. Skeptics often point to failures as a way to reject the process. Actually a failure in one laboratory seldom casts doubt on work in another, unless the two use exactly the same instruments and techniques, which is seldom the case. Failure has many fathers besides the claim being false.

Can't argue with THAT! Amen.

[Rune]

A Student's Guide To Cold Fusion (pdf) by Dr. Edmund Storms

Updated April 2012

REFERENCES

1. Jones, S.E., et al., Observation of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter. Nature (London), 1989. 338: p.737.
2. Santandrea, R.P. and R.G. Behrens, A review of the thermodynamics and phase relationships in the palladium- hydrogen, palladium-deuterium and palladium-tritium systems. High Temperature Materials and Processes, 1986. 7: p. 149.
3. Storms, E. Excess power production from platinum cathodes using the Pons-Fleischmann effect. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy. p. 55-61.
4. Warner, J., J. Dash, and S. Frantz. Electrolysis of D2O with titanium cathodes: enhancement of excess heat and further evidence of possible transmutation. in The Ninth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2002.
   Beijing, China: Tsinghua University: Tsinghua University. p. 404.
5. Bush, R.T. and R.D. Eagleton. Calorimetric studies for several light water electrolytic cells with nickel fibrex cathodes and electrolytes with alkali salts of potassium, rubidium, and cesium. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. p. 13.
6. Mills, R.L. and P. Kneizys, Excess heat production by the electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte and the implications for cold fusion. Fusion Technol., 1991. 20: p. 65.
7. Fleischmann, M. and S. Pons, Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity. Phys. Lett. A, 1993. 176: p. 118.
8. Lonchampt, G., et al. Excess heat measurement with Pons and Fleischmann Type cells. in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. p. 202.
9. Mengoli, G., et al., Calorimetry close to the boiling temperature of the D2O/Pd electrolytic system. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1998. 444: p. 155.
10. Bockris, J.O.M., et al., Triggering of heat and sub-surface changes in Pd-D systems. Trans. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26(#4T): p. 267.
11. Letts, D. and D. Cravens. Laser stimulation of deuterated palladium: past and present. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: World Scientific Publishing Co. p. 159.
12. Violante, V., et al. Progress in excess power production by laser triggering. Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, ICCF-12. 2005. Yokohama, Japan: World Scientific. p. 55
    Nassisi, V., Transmutation of elements in saturated palladium hydrides by an XeCl excimer laser. Fusion Technol., 1998. 33: p. 468.
13. Castellano, et al. Nuclear transmutation in deutered Pd films irradiated by an UV laser. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy. p. 287.
14. Mizuno, T., et al., Production of heat during plasma electrolysis. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2000. 39: p. 6055.
15. Ohmori, T. and T. Mizuno, Nuclear transmutation reaction caused by light water electrolysis on tungsten cathode under incandescent conditions. Infinite Energy, 1999. 5(27): p. 34.
16. Ransford, H.E., Non-Stellar nucleosynthesis: Transition metal production by DC plasma-discharge electrolysis using carbon electrodes in a non-metallic cell. Infinite Energy, 1999. 4(23): p. 16.
17. Sundaresan, R. and J.O.M. Bockris, Anomalous reactions during arcing between carbon rods in water. Fusion Technol., 1994. 26: p. 261.
18. Miley, G. and P. Shrestha, Transmutation reactions and associated low-energy nuclear reactions effects in solids, in ACS Symposium Series 998, Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, J. Marwan and S.B.
    Krivit, Editors. 2008, American Chemical Society: Washington, DC. p. 173-218.
19. Lipson, A.G., et al. In-situ charged particles and X-ray detection in Pd thin film-cathodes during electrolysis in Li2SO4/H2O. in The 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.
    2002. Tsinghua Univ., Beijing, China: Tsinghua Univ. Press. p. 218.
20. Storms, E., Ways to initiate a nuclear reaction in solid environments. Infinite Energy, 2002. 8(45): p. 45.
21. Arata, Y. and Y.-C. Zhang, The basics of nuclear fusion reactor using solid pycnodeuterium as nuclear fuel. High Temp. Soc, Japan, 2003. 29: p. 1.
22. Case, L.C. Catalytic fusion of deuterium into helium-4. in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. p. 48.
23. McKubre, M.C.H., et al. The emergence of a coherent explanation for anomalies observed in D/Pd and H/Pd system: evidence for 4He and 3He production. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy. p. 3-10.
24. Iwamura, Y., et al., Observation of Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation Reactions Induced by Deuterium Permeation through Multilayer Pd and CaO thin Film. J. Cond. Matter Nucl. Sci., 2011. 4: p. 132-144.
25. Liu, B., et al. "Excess heat" induced by deuterium flux in palladium film. in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, ICCF-12. 2005. Yokohama, Japan: World Scientific. p. 75.
26. Biberian, J.-P. and N. Armanet. Excess heat during diffusion of deuterium through palladium. International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science , ICCF-13. 2007. Sochi, Russia:
    Tsiolkovsky Moscow Technical University. p. 170.
27. Claytor, T.N., et al. Tritium production from palladium alloys. in The Seventh International Conference on
    Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. p. 88-93.
28. Dufour, J., et al., Interaction of palladium/hydrogen and palladium/deuterium to measure the excess energy per atom for each isotope. Fusion Technol., 1997. 31: p. 198.
29. Mizuno, T., et al., Anomalous heat evolution from a solid-state electrolyte under alternating current in hightemperature
    D2 gas. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p. 385.
30. Oriani, R.A., An investigation of anomalous thermal power generation from a proton-conducting oxide. Fusion Technol., 1996. 30: p. 281.
31. Biberian, J.-P., et al. Electrolysis of LaAlO3 single crystals and ceramics in a deuteriated atmosphere. in The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1998. Vancouver, Canada: ENECO, Inc., Salt Lake City, Botta, E., et al. Search for 4He production from Pd/D2 systems in gas phase. in 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1995. Monte-Carlo, Monaco: IMRA Europe, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France. p. 233-240.
32. Celani, F., et al., The effect of phase on H(D)/Pd overloading. 1998, Laboratori Nazionalidi Frascati.
    Bartolomeo, C., et al. Alfred Coehn and after: The alpha, beta and gamma of the palladium-hydrogen system. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute
    3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. p. 19.
33. Stringham, R. Sono Cold Fusion Produces Tritium That Decays to Helium Three. in 15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2009. Rome, Italy: ENEA, Italy. p. 57-60.
34. Jorné, J., Ultrasonic irradiation of deuterium-loaded palladium particles suspended in heavy water. Fusion
    Technol., 1996. 29: p. 83.
35. Lipson, A.G., et al., The generation of nuclear fusion products by a combination of cavitation action and
    electrolysis at the titanioum surface in deuterated electrolyte. Zh. Tekh. Fiz., 1993. 63(7): p. 187 (in
    Russian).
36. Petrucci, A., R. Mignani, and F. Cardone. Comparison Between Piezonuclear Reactions and CMNS Phenomenology. in 15th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2009. Rome, Italy:ENEA, Italy. p. 246-250.
37. Griggs, J.L. A brief introduction to the hydrosonic pump and the associated "excess energy" phenomenon. Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. p. 43.

Obviously, a bunch more papers listed here in Dr. Storm's Student Guide.

There is no proof pro or contra LENR yet.

Actually, it's pretty strongly established that the LENR heat phenomenon exists and is real in the laboratory.

That's a pure lie. Give me one independent paper.
There is none.

"Give me one independent paper. There is none". Can you see just how completely ignorant that statement is now?

[johndoe]

You sure it's Rune not PRUNE?
Either way, you have a dreadful case of diarrhoea.
Biggest outpouring of shit I ever came across

[Keith_McClary]

You can search this LENR-CANR stuff like this:
http://google.com/search?q=site%3Alenr- ... +reproduce

I found:

The War Against Cold Fusion
What's really behind it?
Hal Plotkin, Special to SF Gate
Monday, May 17, 1999
...
Since writing my first report on McKubre's work two months ago, I've become convinced that the federal Department of Energy is responsible for a massive failure to serve the public interest.
Rather than budget the funds needed to explore this new, emerging science, our top national energy science officials have adopted what might be called, at best, a policy of benign neglect.
At worst, it's a policy of fraud and deceit.
How could this be happening?
The stakes in the debate about cold fusion are enormous. In this case, an unholy alliance seems to have come together. The principle players are the fossil fuel industry, which has no interest in seeing itself eclipsed by a new, non-polluting source of energy, and the mainstream physics community, which wants to protect, seemingly at all costs, the federal funding it relies on to continue its massively expensive hot fusion experiments.
I've seen how squirrelly even good people can get when a few of their bucks are in jeopardy. So it's not surprising that when several trillion dollars are on the table, there are signs of skullduggery.

If these CF/LENR guys could just make available test tubes with their special electrodes that worked 10% of the time in other peoples' labs, they would get the Nobel Prize and all the funding they wanted.

I'm anticipating the 2014 Silver Anniversary Conference.