Connect with us

LENR history, future, and the politics delaying it

Discussion in 'Home Power and Microgeneration' started by amdx, Feb 5, 2012.

  1. amdx

    amdx Guest

  2. Vaughn

    Vaughn Guest

    I enjoy your cold fusion posts (but remain unconvinced).

    In this case...
    I would appreciate it if you wish to post any more references from that
    particular blog (or whatever it is) please use cut and paste. That site
    tried to load so much shit into my computer that I finally had to force
    my browser to close. Therefore I never got to read the article you
    posted, and certainly won't risk another try.

    Vaughn
     
  3. amdx

    amdx Guest

    Hey Vaughn,
    I'm not sure what problem you're having, I didn't have any problem
    loading it.
    It is an article that is 4 pages long, but to get to the second page you
    you need to click "2".
    Opps, :) The page won't load right now, so I think they are having
    an issue. Oh, just tried it again and it came right up.
    Try again, I don't see a problem loading the page, and I'm on a boat
    using wifi that's at least 100 yards away.
    Here's the first few paragraphs, you can see if it interests you.
    Mikek
    known as "Cold Fusion", or more properly what is now known as
    "Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions" (LENR). The latest was from January 31, 2012

    at M.I.T. in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Professors Peter L. Hagelstein
    and Mitchell Swartz gave a symposium and short class where a

    successful 2-day LANL / LENR/ Cold Fusion experiment was done publicly
    that produced at least 10 times the energy out, than was used.
    fusion attack wave in the early 1990's. Pro-CF proponents, such as the
    late Dr. Eugene Mallove of Harvard and M.I.T. who wrote books and

    articles on LENR before his murder in 2004, have theorized that the
    vehement attacks, derision, and accusations publicly made about it then

    were at least partially about M.I.T. and others trying to protect the
    large amount of government funding they received for "hot fusion" research;

    which would soon become utterly obsolete if cold fusion were a reality.
    LENR research is dozens of times less expensive to perform than

    hot fusion research, and much less ongoing funding is needed to maintain
    a laboratory. No one knows for sure the real reasons CF was completely

    discarded and discredited in the U.S. in the early 1990's; and certainly
    many skeptics there and other places were genuine in their condemnations,

    since many labs attempted "honest" replications and failed to get any
    positive results (but others during that time did in fact get good
    results).

    At any rate, events have proven that the early Pons and Fleischmann
    experiments were indeed correct and worthy of much greater study and
    investment,

    and the most prestigious scientific institute of all, M.I.T., has now
    seen a successful public demonstration and verification over 20 years later.
    given at a major NASA meeting, verifying it is a valid and highly
    important technology that will be pursued in the future. Dr. Dennis
    Bushnell,

    highly respected Chief Scientist at NASA Langley, has recently made
    several positive public statements about LENR and its validity. And back
    in 2008,

    the CBS "Sixty Minutes" TV show did a segment on it ("Cold Fusion is Hot
    Again"), where the amazing statement that the U.S. Naval Research Lab had

    positively verified significant excess energy production was first
    publicly made. Unfortunately, since that Sixty Minutes program first aired,

    very little has changed regarding LENR in the U.S.: University labs are
    still routinely denied funding to study LENR (difficult to understand,

    until one "follows the money" and sees that the majority of these funds
    for university-level energy research now come as endowments and grants

    from large corporations such as oil companies), and we hear very little
    about it in the mainstream media.
     
  4. Jim Wilkins

    Jim Wilkins Guest

    There isn't necessarily an evil bogeyman, usually things just don't work
    because the developer couldn't solve one last "little" problem, the same one
    that stymied everyone else. And that's the part you never hear in the media,
    which doesn't understand the technology or its difficulty anyway. In this
    case it's the Coulomb Barrier.
    http://www.evaluationtoolkit.org/illustrations/4/original/miracle_cartoon.jpg?1231530108

    Sometimes the real story circulates in the scientific community. A good
    example is Bill Lear's steam car project which depended on polywater
    (Learium) for cylinder lubrication. When polywater turned out to be a false
    artifact of bad experimental technique the steam car project disappeared
    without a whisper.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater

    Compare that reality to the hype and conspiracy rumors:
    http://steamautomobile.com/phorum5214/read.php?1,105

    jsw
    R&D lab tech
    Been there, done that, can't discuss it.
     
  5. Jim Wilkins

    Jim Wilkins Guest

    Who said we do know everything? Relativity and quantum mechanics were
    unrelated competing theories. Both survived only because they don't conflict
    experimentally. Newton's law of gravity stops working as expected at the
    edge of our Solar system.
    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/82174-Voyager-anomaly-vs.-Pioneer-anomaly
    The bumblebee claim came from a grad student who had switched from
    aeronautics to biology in the late 20's or early 30's (?), when most
    airplanes had two pairs of incorrectly cambered wings.
    It shows that conspiracy buffs see malice when the cause is error.

    Not that R&D is free of malice. I've lost good jobs because frustrated
    competitors crippled the small company with lawsuits, which are very
    effective at draining resources and distracting engineers even if they lose.
    I avoided having to testify only because I had seen the "secret" circuit
    idea on the electrical schematic of my car.

    jsw
     
  6. Curbie

    Curbie Guest

    Extraordinary claims, especially extraordinary claims that can't be
    explained by the laws of physics as currently understood, require and
    demand extraordinary proof, before they can be proposed as reality.

    It's one thing to study, research and test this idea, the very act of
    which is a valuable exercise in and of itself, it's quite a different
    thing to give this idea any credit before it's conclusively proven
    credible.

    I'm still waiting for proof.

    Curbie
     
  7. Curbie

    Curbie Guest

    I'm willing to accept an independent verification as proof regardless
    of the explanation of physics, or a verifiable test by you or anyone
    else, but that hasn't happened yet... extraordinary claims require and
    demand extraordinary proof, and so far, there's no explanation of
    physics and no flying bumblebee.

    I'll be happy to work with reality until reality changes.
     
  8. Jim Wilkins

    Jim Wilkins Guest

    I'd believe if independent researchers (like you) can duplicate the
    experiment, or test a released product.

    I've had plenty of fun doing fake UFOs, trick photography, theatrical and
    movie effects and laboratory magic tricks as well as dog-and-pony shows to
    impress investors and I know how easy it is to reinforce rebellion against
    the authority of established science.

    It's possible that the flying toys I released as a kid in Exeter NH started
    their UFO craze. The most likely ones were plastic film parachutes with the
    least possible ballast, which floated up on thermals like milkweed seeds.
    They did look like flying saucers as they drifted away over the treetops,
    reflecting the sun and clouds.
    I'm glad you are attempting your own proof. That is the right attitude. My
    mindset in a research project is to be very careful with the procedure and
    try not to become so hopeful or skeptical that I overlook anything. Keep
    good records.
    http://colinpurrington.com/tips/academic/labnotebooks

    jsw
     
  9. Jim Wilkins

    Jim Wilkins Guest

    At the level you are working at, heat IS the proof. You don't need to
    measure the isotopic ratios of copper, only the radiation level outside the
    reactor. Many inventions served for decades without a theoretical
    understanding. The steam engine ran for a century without one.

    Don't be so defensive, I'm skeptical but not trying to dissuade you from
    trying. When you circle the wagons you keep EVERYONE out.

    jsw
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-