Comments on: Cold Fusion Is Hot Again
Add a Comment
- ceetee9, your list of individuals includes established kooks and crooks. On the kooky side you've got luminaries like Jeane Manning and Stephen Greer. Jeane doesn't seem to mean harm, but when asked for references to back some of her conspiracy theory claims such as that John Keely's "work" has been suppressed, she falls silent. Stephen Greer is promoting alien encounter claims straight from the aluminum deflector beanie set. At last count he was giving money to Pete Sumurack for his magic power technology. Pete's magic consists of turning down the acceleration ramp control on a motor control. Naturally, Pete claims he is a victim of suppression by the black ops.
On the crook side, you've got Tom Bearden who makes a living fleecing gullible fools with his nonsense scalar wave and magnetic asymmetry claims. Those are claims he never evidences. Ask Tom Bearden to demonstrate a working version of his MEG. Even EarthTech reluctantly debunked the MEG. - Reply to this comment
- In answer to Larsen's blind reliance on the dictionary definition of nuclear fusion: "Nuclear fusion. 1. A type of nuclear reaction in which atomic nuclei of low atomic number fuse to form a heavier nucleus with the release of large amounts of energy." I could simply have quoted
http://www.answers.com/topic/transuranium-element
where it says
"Super-heavy atoms have all been created during the latter half of the 20th century and are continually being created during the 21st century as technology advances. They are created through the bombardment of elements in a particle accelerator, for example the nuclear fusion of californium-249 and carbon-12 creates rutherfordium."
Hardly 'low atomic numbers' there (californium has atomic number 98). Definitions move with the times; new technology, new definition. - Reply to this comment
- penny_gruber
"Repeatable, verifiable experiment can trump existing theory. After 20 years no CF / LENR experiment that I know of is consistently repeatable."
I know many experiments that fit this description, such as the ones reported by McKubre, Mengoli, Arata or Iwamura. If you do not "know of" these experiments it is because you have not bothered to read the literature. The fact that you do not know about these experiments does not prove that they do not exist; it proves only that you know nothing about cold fusion, and you have no business pontificating about it.
I suggest you read some papers in a university library or at LENR-CANR.org. - Reply to this comment
- Ms. Gruber, I don?t know where you get there is no evidence for these technologies. I have just given you dozens of credible scientists who not only believe there is evidence, strong evidence?including some working prototypes?and there are many, many more if you would take the time to look. Have either you or Mr. Black done any serious investigations into their research? I seriously doubt it.
And as I have provided in the examples I gave, history has proven time and again that just because mainstream science doesn?t believe or accept radical new ideas of their time doesn?t make them not so (and these people were very confident in their arguments and opinions as well). In your own statement you acknowledge that the experiments in CF/LENR are inconsistent. Government and mainstream science have poured billions of dollars into hot fusion over the last few decades with no solution to harnessing it as an energy source. And you have the audacity to say putting money into these other technologies is idiocy and complete folly. How disingenuous!
No, the idiocy and folly is in ignoring any potential solution that may provide unlimited, renewable, non-polluting energy sources while we grow ever closer to sure destruction?up to and including extinction?through pollution, global warming, or world war as our current resources run out. - Reply to this comment
- ceetee9 Samuel Black's comments reflect the confidence that opinions based on hard evidence should. Just because someone believes something is possible doesn't make it so. There are thousands of people who think they can rearrange magnets to get free energy. None of them ever do. There is no basis in our knowledge that supports the idea. I am sure they would like funding. I am sure that any number think that with enough funding they will get past the infamous sticky spot. Absent credible evidence that none of them have, putting resources towards such idiocy is complete folly. What makes them so different from the CF / LENR crowd?
Repeatable, verifiable experiment can trump existing theory. After 20 years no CF / LENR experiment that I know of is consistently repeatable. When you can do that, you have a reasonably good chance that you have isolated effects of the thing you are interested in studying. As long as experiments are inconsistent it is anybody's guess what the experiments mean. CF/LENR interpretations of existing, but inconsistent experiments are just one interpretation of many possible interpretations.
Despite the fact that CF / LENR research over the past 20 years hasn't delivered squat in terms of a reproducible experiment, money still goes towards it. The McKubres of this world don't have lavish budgets or staffs, but they still draw a check and get to toil away at their dream.
Mr. Black has very patiently and very eloquently explained his objections to claims coming from the CF / LENR community. He doesn't propose witch hunts against CF / LENR advocates. He asks simply as any reasonable person would: Show him reliable evidence that makes the claim obvious to a disinterested lay observer. Boil his tea consistently. Surely if CF / LENR is going to boil enough steam to run a power plant, it can be made to consistently boil a cup of tea. - Reply to this comment
- Mr. Black your definitive and self-assured comments speak volumes. Some of your comments are reminiscent of one who will cling so tenaciously to a belief that no amount of evidence or facts will convince them otherwise. You are comforted by being part of the majority and cannot conceive of the majority being wrong. Consequently, anyone who proposes anything contrary to the consensus thinking of the time is crazy, a charlatan or just plain wrong in your mind. No matter?
History is rife with examples of just how closed minded mainstream scientists, journalists and people in general can be and how long it can take to open their minds to new ideas?and the more radical the idea the longer it takes to be accepted. Here are just a few examples that refute your position of how willing scientists (and others) are to accept new ideas. The Wright Brothers were flying for a year before they could get a reporter or anyone in authority to come out to one of their demonstrations, Scientific American wrote an article titled ?The Lying Brothers,? and the US Patent office rejected their design in 1903. C.J. Doppler?s Doppler Effect was opposed for two decades because it did not fit with the physics of the time. B. McClintlock was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1984 for his mobile genetic elements transposons, 32 years after being ridiculed and ignored by his peers. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was viciously attacked by colleagues for 50 years before being awarded a Nobel Prize in physics for his Black Hole theory. The first signs of Quantum Mechanics date back to the middle 1800s (Farady and Kirchhoff) yet it took the work of dozens of physicists over 80 years before ?mainstream? science began to accept it?and even now only a handful of physicists understand it. Do these examples portend scientists who ?fall over themselves? to get involved?
And just like J.P. Morgan who pulled Nikola Tesla?s funding when he learned that Tesla wanted to give away his free energy technology to the world, the current energy cartel not only has no interest in these ?free energy? systems, they are willing to go to great lengths to keep this technology suppressed.
Again I say, if there is nothing to this technology then what are mainstream science, the energy cartel, and our government afraid of?particularly if these technologies can rescue us from our highly polluting and rapidly depleting fossil fuels and give us non-polluting, unlimited free energy? You certainly can?t say it?s the money. We?ve all heard about the absurd government funded studies like studying the mating habits of the titsy fly, $1.2M to study the breeding preferences of a woodchuck, $1M why people don?t like to ride their bikes to work, etc.
Only a fool would argue that research into those types of studies are fine, but research into energy technologies that could give us unlimited, renewable non-polluting energy?that could quite literally save this planet?are foolish and a waste of time.
But my goal in writing my comments aren?t to convince you or anyone else that these technologies are real and hold great promise for our future. My goal is to get more people to suspend their disbelief and preconceived notions long enough to seriously examine the evidence and decide for their self. I gave a list of just a few well respected scientists and inventors of the thousands who are working in these fields and believe the technology is real and can be developed for commercial use very quickly if they can just get adequate funding. - Reply to this comment
- In response to Lewis Larsen: yes, precise use of language is important in science -- in its place. If it were the general practice to use the word fusion to make the distinction Larsen refers to (overcoming the Coulomb barrier being the key factor), it would indeed be an error to use it in a way that ignores that distinction. But as far as I know it is only 2 or 3 people who do insist on the distinction, and I think the lexical opinions of that small minority, which I shall critique in a moment can reasonably be disregarded by the rest.
The Oxford Dictionary of Physics (not the same Oxford Dictionary that places a consciousness conference Ramachandran and I organised in Oxford, I trust, just because the proceedings were pubished by a publisher based in Oxford)? Nice point, but note that the fundamental role of dictionaries is to list the ways in which words are actually used. The editors, logically, should have made reference to cold fusion but may have excluded it on the grounds that it was an error and it was not part of their purpose to include errors in their scholarly work. In other words, it would have been a policy decision not to include cold fusion in their listing of uses of the word fusion. Had it been an accepted phenomenon at the time, I'm sure it would have been included.
Definitions are not meant to be set in stone, but change as science advances. This applies even with fundamental units, whose definitions are changed from time to time since definitions are tied to experimental techniques and sticking to particular definitions may limit the accuracy obtainable while the constant defined differently and it may be better to change it, for example changing which atomic transition is used to define the unit of time.
Point made, I trust, but I'd like to make some other points as well:
1) The term CF has largely been abandoned by the active community in favour of LENR (low energy nuclear reactions). That is not ideal either since there are other LENRs, e.g. reactions involving slow neutrons. Other suggested alternatives have not become popular. The ideal, in my opinion, would have been 'catalysed nuclear reactions', making the point that the reactions go faster than normal but without any commitment to mechanism.
2) Saying 'this is not fusion' is liable to be misinterpreted as casting doubt on the evidence for something anomalous happening, which I think is not your intention. If you were precede the remarks you feel compelled to make with something like 'strictly speaking' the problem would be avoided.
3) The fact that your lexical point is nearly always accompanied by reference to your own theory gives the unfortunate impression that your real aim is publicity for your work, rather than clarifying definitions.
Brian J. - Reply to this comment
- "It's truly sad and disheartening that so many, otherwise intelligent scientists, journalists, and government "leaders," would fight so hard to suppress, deny, and fallaciously debunk any potential energy solutions ..."
It would indeed be sad if it were true, but you should keep in mind Asimov?s admonition that to be a persecuted genius, it is not enough to be persecuted; you also need to be right.
"Do you think it's because, like Copernicus' and Galileo's colleagues who "knew" the Sun revolved around the Earth, contemporary theories are right; all others wrong (i.e., there is nothing new to learn), or because it's far safer and more important to be a "team player" and espouse the party line so as to keep one's position, credentials, power and authority, or because academe skeptics have a vested interest in pursuing more traditional (classical) physics solutions and/or are afraid of losing government funding if they don't do as the government (current energy cartel) tells them, or, could it be because the powers-that-be are so self-absorbed and arrogant -- that they truly believe they know better than anyone else what we and the planet can (or will) tolerate -- that they are willing to go to any lengths to maintain power and control and suck every last dollar they can out of existing technologies [...] I think it's a mix of all of the above, but all of them are unconscionable and counter productive. "
No. It is most certainly none of the above. CF and its close relatives are being ignored because scientists actually believe there is nothing potential in them for sound scientific reasons.
Your premise that in the modern scientific era, new ideas are suppressed to preserve status quo is (with a few notable exceptions) sadly wrong. It is especially wrong when one considers bench-top physics experiments that anyone can perform for relatively low cost. Notice that you went back to Galileo to find an example of suppression, and that suppression came from the church, not other scientists. The same is true of Darwin's revolutionary theory.
The last century has seen unprecedented revolution in scientific theories, and for the most part, these have not only been rapidly accepted, but physicists practically fell over themselves to get involved; which is why so many of the physicists from the decades surrounding the emergence of modern physics have become household names.
CF is a bench-top physics experiment, similar to measuring blackbody radiation from a cavity or current from the photoelectric effect. And evidence from these experiments ushered in the revolutionary theory of quantum mechanics. It took some 30 years to develop a formal theory, but the notion that electromagnetic waves are quantized was accepted rather quickly, even though Planck himself, who first suggested it, thought the idea was an artifact of a reality yet to be discovered.
Planck and Einstein received Nobel prizes for suggesting light quanta, and it took less time than CF has been around. That doesn?t sound like "trying to be a team player and espouse the party line".
Or consider de Broglie, who, as a graduate student, proposed the revolutionary idea that electrons have a wavelength. Although some were skeptical, others were immediately supportive, and de Broglie was awarded the Nobel prize 5 years later (after the idea was confirmed by electron diffraction). That doesn't sound like "academe skeptics [with] a vested interest in pursuing more traditional (classical) physics solutions [who are] are afraid of losing government funding if they don't do as the government ... tells them", now does it?
Or consider relativity. The special theory (1905), which rejects the dearly-held notion of absolute time was largely accepted within about 5 years. After the general theory (1915) was verified by the bending of light in 1919, Einstein became an instant celebrity. That is hardly a description of "powers-that-be [that] are so self-absorbed and arrogant -- that they truly believe they know better than anyone else [and are] willing to go to any lengths to maintain power and control and suck every last dollar they can out of existing technologies".
Physicists are only too well aware of the danger of decrying new ideas, which is why the biggest rebuttal to your feeble conspiracy theory is CF itself. For a brief time Pons and Fleischmann were celebrated, and every major laboratory in the world was doing CF experiments, in spite of their implausibility. The atmosphere in science was electric. The ACS and APS meetings that followed were dominated by the topic, and some tentative theories were proposed to explain it. Nearly everyone wanted it to be true. CF got more than a reasonable chance. The wheels fell off, not because of scientific inertia or dogma, but simply because people couldn?t make it work as advertised. And sadly, they still can?t.
[with apologies for using large parts of my previous posts in this forum] - Reply to this comment
- I am cautiously optimistic that, perhaps, a crack has been opened in the multi-decade?s long closed door toward advanced energy research. Whether the powers-that-be are finally getting it or this piece is just a token gesture to appease the thousands who have been pushing for some serious and honest investigations into the claims made by creative and courageous visionary scientists, inventors, and engineers is the question.
It?s truly sad and disheartening that so many, otherwise intelligent scientists, journalists, and government ?leaders,? would fight so hard to suppress, deny, and fallaciously debunk any potential energy solutions that could replace our current, highly polluting energy technologies and rapidly depleting energy resources?particularly when they portend unlimited resource and zero (or near zero) pollution.
Do you think it?s because, like Copernicus? and Galileo?s colleagues who ?knew? the Sun revolved around the Earth, contemporary theories are right; all others wrong (i.e., there is nothing new to learn), or because it?s far safer and more important to be a ?team player? and espouse the party line so as to keep one?s position, credentials, power and authority, or because academe skeptics have a vested interest in pursuing more traditional (classical) physics solutions and/or are afraid of losing government funding if they don?t do as the government (current energy cartel) tells them, or, could it be because the powers-that-be are so self-absorbed and arrogant?that they truly believe they know better than anyone else what we and the planet can (or will) tolerate?that they are willing to go to any lengths to maintain power and control and suck every last dollar they can out of existing technologies and us?maybe even to the point of driving us to extinction? I think it?s a mix of all of the above, but all of them are unconscionable and counter productive.
As John Dalberg-Acton said, ?Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.?
I sincerely hope that all of those who have had a hand in suppressing advanced energy technologies, for whatever reason, do some serious soul searching and consider their own family?s future generations even if they are not willing to consider others.
And I applaud and encourage those courageous individuals whose principals and unyielding drive to seek knowledge and truth supersedes their instinct to play it safe and maintain the status quo. If it wasn?t for people like you we would, no doubt, still be living in caves.
Whether anyone reading this believes low energy nuclear reaction (aka cold fusion), zero point, electrogravitics, acoustic cavitation, hydrogen gas cells, or any other of the promising advanced energy technologies exist or not is not important. But what is important is that we all demand that our government, academe, and the media do serious and unbiased investigations into all of these technologies. If it?s all bunk then what are they afraid of? If we have no problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on ?hot fusion? research over the last couple decades?that has failed to yield any significant results?then surely we can afford to spend a few hundred million to research technologies that promise zero pollution and unlimited resources when sufficiently developed.
I highly encourage everyone to do your own research and investigation into advanced energy technologies. There is a wealth of information in books, journals, videos, CDs, and on the web. The following are just a few good resources and topics you can start with by searching the web or visiting your local library or book store:
Brian O?Leary, Ph.D.
Paul LaViolette Ph.D.
Ervin Laszlo, Ph.D.
Eugene Mallove, Ph.D.
Thomas Townsend Brown
Paul Biefeld, Ph.D.
Nikola Tesla
Tom Bearden
Guy Obolensky, Ph.D.
Eugene Podkletnov, Ph.D.
Stanley Pons, Ph.D.
Martin Fleischmann, Ph.D.
Michael McKubre, Ph.D.
Jeane Manning
Herman Branover, Ph.D.
Bruce DePalma, Ph.D.
Bernard Haisch, Ph.D.
Steven Greer, M.D.
Randell Mills, Ph.D.
Zero Point Energy (ZPE)
LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction; aka Cold Fusion)
Electrogravitics
Subquantum Kinetics
Acoustic Cavitation
And I challenge 60 Minutes and any other mainstream media news shows to do more ?unbiased? pieces on advanced energy technologies. If you aren?t part of the solution, you are part of the problem. - Reply to this comment
- Alistair, Bessler's overbalanced wheel does not work. It doesn't work today. It didn't work last week. It didn't work last year. In the over 1200 years that we know about these proposals they have never worked. Visit the Museum of Unworkable Devices for a nice history on these things.
Wrecking balls like any other pendulum store energy accumulated over many cycles. They adhere to conservation of energy. They conform to Newton's Laws of motion. They do not violate any of the laws of thermodynamics.
Idiocy is denial of proven fact. - Reply to this comment
