Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Thanks for that comment Thomas, but my credentials are nowhere close to Ed's - and consist of mainly having been around the scene for 19 years with a strong interest (60 hour weeks) in trying to understand what is happening on a much broader front than LENR alone. However, having said that - If given the chance to influence funding, I would probably disappoint many of the entrenched researchers, even Ed, who want (correctly) to fully understand what is happening before moving on.. I think the 'big picture' situation is so dire that we must use a large chunk of whatever funding comes along in a calculated gamble - such that even if we do not understand the situation well enough, we do know enough to jump-start the the applied technology by going ahead with actual devices. There would still be basic RD but there would also be a concurrent jump-start program. By that, I would suggest water-heaters and home heating as the initial product and solicit designs from present manufacturers of those products who were willing to work with people like Ed to try to leap over the normally accepted way these things proceed. In other words we would use the Manhattan project of a model for how to cut 20 years off the traditional process (of going from lab to factory floor in small well-understood steps) - and allow the project to use maximum over time and double shifts and expect a commercial product in six months. It will not be perfect, but from then on, we use the Model-T approach of of weekly improvements. We must be able to do this in the face of falling oil prices as well, as that is a false-enticement to go slower. OPEC already pulled that trick out of the hat in the early seventies. This proto-plan would also mean that Mills/BLP would be in a favored position in such a scenario - since at least they have demonstrated something that points in the firm direction of a water heater using alternative fuel. However, it might be necessary to compensate BLP for expected future patent royalties, with or without their approval, and commandeer the IP for use by others -- in a kind of national competition. And, to the further disappointment of Mills, I would insist that he (or one of the grantees of the hydrino technology) try to run the system on deuterium, to see how that change affects things; and also to try to integrate the hydrino into a hybrid hot reactor (fission or fusion) ! Bottom line - most researchers who want to proceed with business-as-usual, even at greatly increased funding levels, better look for someone less-radical and less-frightened about of the direction our society is headed. Jones - Original Message From: thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Edmund Storms wrote: OK Thomas, suppose your letter is believed and answered. Exactly how would you propose this money be spent and by whom? You can say, this is not your concern. However, somebody has to provide the answer. This is impossible unless the field can agree on what the consensus thinks is the best approach. Would you want the loudest or the most I'd suggest a board of open minded people to spread the aforementioned money around. People with credentials. I'd like to nominate you and Jones Beene. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Howdy Jones, Energy is the mother's milk of our present day society and economy. Think of a hungry infant and the fuss they raise when it's feeding time and try to imagine a major national energy lurch that would make the 1973 experience look like childs play. I can understand Ed Storm's concern and his sense of urgency. Will it take a similar event to get past the politics of energy planning? The laws of human nature dictate such a scenario. Another scenario to consider is a shutdown of nationwide communications. We would be in the dark about what's in the dark Richard
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Jed, Another point you should consider including is that because America has failed to follow thorough on its own discovery and fund the research; other country's are also effected. Some countries have been actively discouraged from working in the field by American government employees; Huizenga on his Australian tour in the 1990's. If the technology becomes very significant but allies miss out because of the position the US government and its textbook authors took, it may prove to have very adverse effects on foreign relations. Its already tarnished the countries reputation as a scientific leader with those foreign researchers that know of its past erroneous analysis of the discovery. Jed Rothwell wrote: Okay, people, let's have a serious discussion of this. The election is just around the corner, and we should have the letter ready on day one, as the politicians say. Let's hear some suggestions -- wording, goals, people we should send it to, etc. I want to make it clear that I am not proposing this be an exclusive approach to the new administration. I hope that many other cold fusion researchers and supporters also try to make contact with the new admin. The more approaches we make, the more likely it is that one will get through. Ed Storms told me that other people are approaching Obama's people quietly. I am sure the Navy people are getting ready to make their case. That's fine. I am not proposing they stop, or combine forces with others on this letter, or that all CF researchers should agree on what is needed. But we do many things in parallel. The Navy people can contact the higher-ups in their organization while at the same time they sign a letter with other people outside the Navy. The one thing I would suggest is that we should not have two simultaneous campaigns to publish open letters by many CF researchers. That would confuse things. I propose to put it on its own HTML page at LENR-CANR. I wil keep the list of signatures current, if people start to respond. Steve Krivit and others can periodically copy the text, or just point to the HTML page, whichever they prefer. I think the letter should have the following characteristics: It should be very short. It should get right to the point, and be categorical. It should be non-technical. There is plenty of technical information available at LENR-CANR for those who want to learn more. It should make only a few points: that cold fusion is real and it may be able to solve the energy crisis. It should include nothing about the controversy, history, calorimetry, theory, present state of the art, reproducibility, or anything else. Again, such details are available for those who want them. It should make one or two specific recommendations: $5 or $10 million in government funding per year (or whatever dollar amount we agree on). No specifics about who gets the money or what they do with it. It should be signed by as many people as we can muster, especially people with impressive sounding titles. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
FWIW, one of Joe Biden's science advisers is the ever irascible Dr. Peter Zimmerman. I gather he still advises Biden on occasion on scientific matters, presumably of a nuclear nature...at least Dr. Zimmerman has continued to advertise that fact within the HSG forum. Years ago in a private exchange I had with Zimmerman I recall him instructing me on the fact that early CF researchers should have died from excess radiation exposure. I think at the time Dr. Zimmerman actually believed he was revealing a devastating conclusion to me, a conclusion that he may have assumed I was ignorant of. I might be wrong but I can't help but suspect that Dr. Zimmerman is likely to take the exact same tact with Biden should the good senator ask him for his scientific POV on the matter. Maybe Dr. Zimmerman's POV has tempered somewhat since those early exchanges, but that's a long shot a best. IOW, getting Obama's ear might prove to be difficult. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Wesley Bruce wrote: Jed, Another point you should consider including is that because America has failed to follow thorough on its own discovery and fund the research; other country's are also effected. That is true, and important, but I think it is too much detail for this message. I want to keep it very short. If someone wants more info., they should read the papers and books on the web and in the bookstores. I don't want to cram the whole story into three paragraphs. If I were a busy science advisor type person, I would stop reading after two paragraphs if the letter did not get right to the point. Some countries have been actively discouraged from working in the field by American government employees; Huizenga on his Australian tour in the 1990's. That's terrible. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: When you specify an amount, you run the risk of creating an artificial ceiling that you may come to regret. OTOH if you don't specify an amount you run the risk of getting too little. I think the letter should state a specific amount of money. Especially a small amount such as $5 or $10 million, so that the person reading it knows we are not asking for the moon. Everyone knows that if the research begins to succeed actual commercialization will cost hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. What I am reading a proposal of this nature, I get antsy when the author does not make specific, verifiable assertions and requests. We do not want to make vague assertions that some amount of money will be needed for some period of time for some complicated goal that ordinary people cannot understand. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
At 12:38 AM 10/28/2008 +1100, Wesley Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jed, Another point you should consider including is that because America has failed to follow thorough on its own discovery and fund the research; other country's are also effected. Some countries have been actively discouraged from working in the field by American government employees; Huizenga on his Australian tour in the 1990's. If the technology becomes very significant but allies miss out because of the position the US government and its textbook authors took, it may prove to have very adverse effects on foreign relations. Its already tarnished the countries reputation as a scientific leader with those foreign researchers that know of its past erroneous analysis of the discovery. Excellent analysis and report. Thank you for sharing that P.O.V.
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
OrionWorks wrote: FWIW, one of Joe Biden's science advisers is the ever irascible Dr. Peter Zimmerman. I gather he still advises Biden on occasion on scientific matters . . . Yikes. That man is impossible to deal with. He and Park are still on the warpath against cold fusion. Maybe Dr. Zimmerman's POV has tempered somewhat since those early exchanges, but that's a long shot a best. I wouldn't bother with him. IOW, getting Obama's ear might prove to be difficult. If people like Zimmerman are his gatekeepers it will prove impossible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Perhaps what the world stock markets are saying is... Neither candidate or party for the US presidency has what it takes to lead. However, we must try and a letter is a step. Richard OrionWorks wrote: FWIW, one of Joe Biden's science advisers is the ever irascible Dr. Peter Zimmerman. I gather he still advises Biden on occasion on scientific matters . . . Yikes. That man is impossible to deal with. He and Park are still on the warpath against cold fusion. Maybe Dr. Zimmerman's POV has tempered somewhat since those early exchanges, but that's a long shot a best. I wouldn't bother with him. IOW, getting Obama's ear might prove to be difficult. If people like Zimmerman are his gatekeepers it will prove impossible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Richard, If you think we (USA) have it bad - what about Asia? apparently (according to Business Week) the Japanese exchange has hit a 26 year low ! On the bright side - I see the cup as half-full: many marvelous things are happening as we speak - and coming together in alternative energy in what will be a surprising synergy and paradigm shift; collectively these will be the next big thing ... and it is unlikely that government will be agile enough help. Let's just hope that it is sooner rather than later and that we can keep government for getting in the way... Jones ... half-full or half-empty, it all gets drunk in the end
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
The markets world-wide are not reacting to who may be the president in the US and what he might do. They are reacting to real events in the financial world and the anticipation that a world-wide depression is underway. Until the dead wood is out of the market, no one can have much effect. The issue is who do you want to pick up the pieces, unite the country, and put people back to work. Do you want an old guy who has demonstrated a belief in the failed ideology or a young guy who at least describes another way? The stakes are too high to make a mistake this time as was done in the past. As for a letter, someone will be asked to describe exactly how the requested money will be spent, exactly who will do the work, and when the promised results can be expected. Without a rational and scientifically correct answer, all of the written letters will be useless. If someone wants to actually attract funding, they need to provide this required information. This is a fact of life that needs to be discussed before a lot of time is wasted writing letters that will be answered by form letters sent by the staff of the candidate. If for some miracle a scientific adviser should respond, if this information cannot be supplied in a timely manner, all of the effort will be wasted. No matter how real CF is, people at that level need exact information that can stand review by trusted scientists. If the answer looks weak or inaccurate, the first impression will be negative. So, I suggest we in the field get our act together before sending letters that might cause this information to be requested. Ed On Oct 27, 2008, at 8:40 AM, R C Macaulay wrote: Perhaps what the world stock markets are saying is... Neither candidate or party for the US presidency has what it takes to lead. However, we must try and a letter is a step. Richard OrionWorks wrote: FWIW, one of Joe Biden's science advisers is the ever irascible Dr. Peter Zimmerman. I gather he still advises Biden on occasion on scientific matters . . . Yikes. That man is impossible to deal with. He and Park are still on the warpath against cold fusion. Maybe Dr. Zimmerman's POV has tempered somewhat since those early exchanges, but that's a long shot a best. I wouldn't bother with him. IOW, getting Obama's ear might prove to be difficult. If people like Zimmerman are his gatekeepers it will prove impossible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Edmund Storms wrote: As for a letter, someone will be asked to describe exactly how the requested money will be spent, exactly who will do the work, and when the promised results can be expected. Without a rational and scientifically correct answer, all of the I would suggest making the case that there are numerous experiments showing surplus energy production, isotopes which are rare in nature occurring in high quantities, and radioactive materials becoming nonradioactive in weeks, not millennia. I would also mention BLP's exotic material production. I would mention the LENR site, and the documentation that it provides. I would continue by saying that the mainstream scientists have fought this technology by all means at their disposal. I would speculate that the results conflict with their preconceived notions. However, I would hasten to mention that they have received over $150 billion in research grants, and that just covers hot fusion, not radioactive element remediation. In spite of this resistance, the research into LENR has continued funded in large by individuals. I would conclude by suggesting that the government commit 1/10 as much to LENR as it has to hot fusion and Yucca Mountain. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
OK Thomas, suppose your letter is believed and answered. Exactly how would you propose this money be spent and by whom? You can say, this is not your concern. However, somebody has to provide the answer. This is impossible unless the field can agree on what the consensus thinks is the best approach. Would you want the loudest or the most well connected to make this decision, which is what usually happens to government programs? While I agree letter writing can have an effect if it addresses an obvious solution on which many people agree. The CF field is not in this position. The information you propose to include in your letter is important but I suspect all aware people at the national level these days already know this. The question is what do they do about this knowledge? Without this information, the letter will be wasted. Ed On Oct 27, 2008, at 11:35 AM, thomas malloy wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: As for a letter, someone will be asked to describe exactly how the requested money will be spent, exactly who will do the work, and when the promised results can be expected. Without a rational and scientifically correct answer, all of the I would suggest making the case that there are numerous experiments showing surplus energy production, isotopes which are rare in nature occurring in high quantities, and radioactive materials becoming nonradioactive in weeks, not millennia. I would also mention BLP's exotic material production. I would mention the LENR site, and the documentation that it provides. I would continue by saying that the mainstream scientists have fought this technology by all means at their disposal. I would speculate that the results conflict with their preconceived notions. However, I would hasten to mention that they have received over $150 billion in research grants, and that just covers hot fusion, not radioactive element remediation. In spite of this resistance, the research into LENR has continued funded in large by individuals. I would conclude by suggesting that the government commit 1/10 as much to LENR as it has to hot fusion and Yucca Mountain. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Edmund Storms wrote: As for a letter, someone will be asked to describe exactly how the requested money will be spent, exactly who will do the work, and when the promised results can be expected. Mike Melich and others are working on such plans. Of course no one can say when the results can be expected, and the results are certainly not promised. Anyone familiar with science and technology will know that. My hope is that many people in the Obama administration will be familiar with science and technology. At least we know for certain that Obama firmly believes in evolution. That is a big step up from the present administration. Without a rational and scientifically correct answer, all of the written letters will be useless. Then we should develop a rational and scientifically correct answer, quickly. If for some miracle a scientific adviser should respond, if this information cannot be supplied in a timely manner . . . I am sure it can be supplied in a timely manner. Heck, if I had to I could supply it myself. I would simply recommend that they expand the present Italian materials science program by letting people such as Imam participate. It is the kind of research that can be done in parallel efforts. I am sure that if we asked Imam, Pam Boss, Mike Melich, Tom Claytor and several others in the government and they could recommend projects to be funded, and they could answer within a week or two. I think it is a bad idea to do nothing because we think we will probably fail. Or because it would difficult to define a program in a hurry, or because without a certain promise of success is likely to be rejected. Even though I am pessimistic to the core having been beaten over the head with countless technical failures,computer software problems and so on, I do not like the won't work, can't work, don't even try outlook. I feel that we must try, even if the chance of success is low. Obama himself has taught that lesson. As he said in Iowa: For many months, we've been teased, even derided for talking about hope. But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. It's not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and to work for it, and to fight for it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Edmund Storms wrote: Exactly how would you propose this money be spent and by whom? You can say, this is not your concern. However, somebody has to provide the answer. This is impossible unless the field can agree on what the consensus thinks is the best approach. We do not need a consensus. Whoever answers the inquiry would provide the answer. If they return the call to me, I would direct them to Mike Melich, Pam Boss, Mike McKubre and the other prominent US researchers I listed previously (including Storms, of course). Even if other researchers do not agree with them and no larger consensus can be reached, I would recommend that the government along with whatever they recommend, because they have a track record of success. Would you want the loudest or the most well connected to make this decision, which is what usually happens to government programs? It is possible that the Obama administration will be different from others in this regard. The campaign has been completely different from any previous campaign in US history. Anyway, our people have the best results which gives them the loudest voice. And we are not talking about huge sums of money that researchers outside the field would immediately target for themselves. While I agree letter writing can have an effect if it addresses an obvious solution on which many people agree. The CF field is not in this position. I have never seen an interesting, developing field in science or technology in which many people agree. They always fight tooth and nail. In computers, for example, you have Mac versus PC. You only get general agreement in lifeless fields. The information you propose to include in your letter is important but I suspect all aware people at the national level these days already know this. I suspect is not good evidence. It is not what they call actionable intelligence. Anyway, you suspect, but I don't. I have talked to countless people about cold fusion -- including important people in leadership positions. Most of them are completely unaware that it exists. Many are well disposed toward it, and willing to look at more information. The first step has to be to bring it to their attention. You cannot expect Obama to do anything about cold fusion if he is completely unaware that it exists. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
I am posting too much. *Fund a chair* at a very good university. Get someone with balls (or ovaries) who is well respected (and above it all) and can street fight if it comes down to it. I can't remember the name of the chap doing CF at MIT... Let them be your president and chief administrator (you can vote them off). Get a visionary who is strong and still young but mature 45-55. Rather than make the chair exclusive let the chair be cross subject, say micro-electronics and LENR research with a requirement that they must devote at least half their time, seriously to each chair. They will liaise with universities, industrial labs, talented individuals and small teams and add some coherency. If you still had Julian Schwinger I guess he would have been good for this role. You need a champion for the downtrodden. Well connected, a real mover and shaker who gets a foot in the door at government level. Try the scientific society who's who and get a group of your leaders to meet them. Ask for a few hours of their time politely in a non-formal, get to know-ya session. Make sure the people you send have too done good stuff outside the CF field, not necessarily science. Say an ex-general etc. This DOE report of a few years ago, didn't half think it was worth pursuing. Why not contact that half? Long live the Queen, long live the president. Gawd bless you marm! -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 October 2008 17:57 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion OK Thomas, suppose your letter is believed and answered. Exactly how would you propose this money be spent and by whom? You can say, this is not your concern. However, somebody has to provide the answer. This is impossible unless the field can agree on what the consensus thinks is the best approach. Would you want the loudest or the most well connected to make this decision, which is what usually happens to government programs? While I agree letter writing can have an effect if it addresses an obvious solution on which many people agree. The CF field is not in this position. The information you propose to include in your letter is important but I suspect all aware people at the national level these days already know this. The question is what do they do about this knowledge? Without this information, the letter will be wasted. Ed On Oct 27, 2008, at 11:35 AM, thomas malloy wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: As for a letter, someone will be asked to describe exactly how the requested money will be spent, exactly who will do the work, and when the promised results can be expected. Without a rational and scientifically correct answer, all of the I would suggest making the case that there are numerous experiments showing surplus energy production, isotopes which are rare in nature occurring in high quantities, and radioactive materials becoming nonradioactive in weeks, not millennia. I would also mention BLP's exotic material production. I would mention the LENR site, and the documentation that it provides. I would continue by saying that the mainstream scientists have fought this technology by all means at their disposal. I would speculate that the results conflict with their preconceived notions. However, I would hasten to mention that they have received over $150 billion in research grants, and that just covers hot fusion, not radioactive element remediation. In spite of this resistance, the research into LENR has continued funded in large by individuals. I would conclude by suggesting that the government commit 1/10 as much to LENR as it has to hot fusion and Yucca Mountain. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
RE: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Edmund Storms wrote: Exactly how would you propose this money be spent and by whom? You can say, this is not your concern. However, somebody has to provide the answer. This is impossible unless the field can agree on what the consensus thinks is the best approach. Ed, why do you think it has to be one particular way... and I'm not comfortable with the 'in-crowd' choosing which way is 'best'. Any rational person who has been following LENR for just the last year or two knows that this field is NOT sufficiently mature to say that one way out of 10 is the best to pursue, and putting all your govt eggs in one basket is just plain foolish. If that one way fails, you've pretty much screwed ALL further funding for ALL other ways of doing LENR... kiss it goodbye forever. Sorry to be so blunt, but bad idea. If this were to be funded by the fed'l govt, then I think we can assume $20M to $50M for the first year, which is a piss in the proverbial ocean when it comes to govt programs; i'd take it out of the hot-fusion budget personally! :-) Sweet justice, eh Gene! ;-) Then I'd fund 20 of the existing research groups at a mil$ each. See what they come up with in a year. I think the goal for that first year would be that each research group would work with academia or govt labs to replicate each group's work. The first year is simply an attempt to get some quality replications done by 'outsiders' (competent scientists who have not been working actively in LENR) in order to give LENR more credibility by having repeatable tests done by scientists who haven't been emotionally tied up in the research for 20 years... Second year would then focus on 6 to 10 of the 20 approaches, and work on further replications and theoretical models... no need to plan any further out at this time. -Mark -Mark -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion OK Thomas, suppose your letter is believed and answered. Exactly how would you propose this money be spent and by whom? You can say, this is not your concern. However, somebody has to provide the answer. This is impossible unless the field can agree on what the consensus thinks is the best approach. Would you want the loudest or the most well connected to make this decision, which is what usually happens to government programs? While I agree letter writing can have an effect if it addresses an obvious solution on which many people agree. The CF field is not in this position. The information you propose to include in your letter is important but I suspect all aware people at the national level these days already know this. The question is what do they do about this knowledge? Without this information, the letter will be wasted. Ed On Oct 27, 2008, at 11:35 AM, thomas malloy wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: As for a letter, someone will be asked to describe exactly how the requested money will be spent, exactly who will do the work, and when the promised results can be expected. Without a rational and scientifically correct answer, all of the I would suggest making the case that there are numerous experiments showing surplus energy production, isotopes which are rare in nature occurring in high quantities, and radioactive materials becoming nonradioactive in weeks, not millennia. I would also mention BLP's exotic material production. I would mention the LENR site, and the documentation that it provides. I would continue by saying that the mainstream scientists have fought this technology by all means at their disposal. I would speculate that the results conflict with their preconceived notions. However, I would hasten to mention that they have received over $150 billion in research grants, and that just covers hot fusion, not radioactive element remediation. In spite of this resistance, the research into LENR has continued funded in large by individuals. I would conclude by suggesting that the government commit 1/10 as much to LENR as it has to hot fusion and Yucca Mountain. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html --- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.3/1748 - Release Date: 10/26/2008 7:53 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.3/1748 - Release Date: 10/26/2008 7:53 PM
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
On Oct 27, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Mark Iverson wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Exactly how would you propose this money be spent and by whom? You can say, this is not your concern. However, somebody has to provide the answer. This is impossible unless the field can agree on what the consensus thinks is the best approach. Ed, why do you think it has to be one particular way... I don't think it has to be one particular way. However, only people in the field who have been following what has been observed and debated are qualified to make a rational decision. You don't invite your plumber in to make suggestions to your doctor. and I'm not comfortable with the 'in-crowd' Only the in-crowd have the knowledge. I have discussed the field with many would-be researchers. Many are sincere and interested in contributing but have so little knowledge of what is known that their approach would not only have to rediscover the wheel but would need instruction about how it worked. choosing which way is 'best'. Any rational person who has been following LENR for just the last year or two knows that this field is NOT sufficiently mature to say that one way out of 10 is the best to pursue, and putting all your govt eggs in one basket is just plain foolish. If that one way fails, you've pretty much screwed ALL further funding for ALL other ways of doing LENR... kiss it goodbye forever. Sorry to be so blunt, but bad idea. I agree, all the eggs should not be put in one basket. We should however be sure these are actually eggs we are using. I know of many approaches that would have no chance of success. The field is no longer completely ignorant of how the effect works. If this were to be funded by the fed'l govt, then I think we can assume $20M to $50M for the first year, which is a piss in the proverbial ocean when it comes to govt programs; i'd take it out of the hot-fusion budget personally! :-) Sweet justice, eh Gene! ;-) Then I'd fund 20 of the existing research groups at a mil$ each. See what they come up with in a year. Good idea, but there is no chance this will be accepted. I think the goal for that first year would be that each research group would work with academia or govt labs to replicate each group's work. The first year is simply an attempt to get some quality replications done by 'outsiders' (competent scientists who have not been working actively in LENR) in order to give LENR more credibility by having repeatable tests done by scientists who haven't been emotionally tied up in the research for 20 years... Second year would then focus on 6 to 10 of the 20 approaches, and work on further replications and theoretical models... no need to plan any further out at this time. The government funds programs using a well documented system. A proposal is written, it is submitted to the appropriate agency on the right forms, and the idea is evaluated by review based, in part, on need, possible success, connection to other work the agency is funding and opinions of the peer reviewers. Any proposal needs to take these criteria into account. At this time, any money given to CF has to come from another program, which will scream like Hell to prevent this loss. As a result, the idea has to be VERY good. Consequently, I'm suggesting the people who might have good ideas contribute to a discussion about what such a proposal should be contain. Ed -Mark -Mark -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion OK Thomas, suppose your letter is believed and answered. Exactly how would you propose this money be spent and by whom? You can say, this is not your concern. However, somebody has to provide the answer. This is impossible unless the field can agree on what the consensus thinks is the best approach. Would you want the loudest or the most well connected to make this decision, which is what usually happens to government programs? While I agree letter writing can have an effect if it addresses an obvious solution on which many people agree. The CF field is not in this position. The information you propose to include in your letter is important but I suspect all aware people at the national level these days already know this. The question is what do they do about this knowledge? Without this information, the letter will be wasted. Ed On Oct 27, 2008, at 11:35 AM, thomas malloy wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: As for a letter, someone will be asked to describe exactly how the requested money will be spent, exactly who will do the work, and when the promised results can be expected. Without a rational and scientifically correct answer, all of the I would suggest making the case that there are numerous experiments showing surplus
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Edmund Storms wrote: OK Thomas, suppose your letter is believed and answered. Exactly how would you propose this money be spent and by whom? You can say, this is not your concern. However, somebody has to provide the answer. This is impossible unless the field can agree on what the consensus thinks is the best approach. Would you want the loudest or the most I'd suggest a board of open minded people to spread the aforementioned money around. People with credentials. I'd like to nominate you and Jones Beene. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Good answer. :-) On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:03 PM, thomas malloy wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: OK Thomas, suppose your letter is believed and answered. Exactly how would you propose this money be spent and by whom? You can say, this is not your concern. However, somebody has to provide the answer. This is impossible unless the field can agree on what the consensus thinks is the best approach. Would you want the loudest or the most I'd suggest a board of open minded people to spread the aforementioned money around. People with credentials. I'd like to nominate you and Jones Beene. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
[Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
After the election, I think it would be a good idea for cold fusion researchers to make a concerted effort to approach the incoming administration. We should find out who has been tapped for the secretary of energy and/or who the elected president's energy advisors are, and try to approach those people. We should approach anyone who might have access to the nascent administration, along with influential people who have expressed sympathy for cold fusion, such as Llewellyn King. There will be millions of e-mails and letters sent to the new administration so it will be difficult to get through this blizzard, but perhaps if we act in concert and we sound like highly responsible mainstream people and we can generate a signal above the noise level. I assume Obama will win. This is probably good news for us. His people are highly in tune with technology and change. I have first-hand personal experience with this, working as a volunteer for the campaign. They have used computers and other technology in ways that never would have occurred to me, and I pride myself on being a forward-looking, with-it kind of guy. (Whether Obama himself is highly computer literate does not matter; he hires people who are and he gives them free reign to do what they want to do.) Obama and his people are also extremely well-organized and responsive. Quoting an expert on this: [Obama] has the best political organization for a presidential campaign that I have ever seen here, Tom Slade, a former [Florida] state Republican chairman, said of Mr. Obama. Bar none. He has run a phenomenally good campaign. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/politics/25florida.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/politics/25florida.html I have not had time to think about this lately, but I am going to circulate this memo to cold fusion researchers and interested people such as the readers of this list. Anyone who has ideas to contribute should post them here. I recommend a restrained, sensible tone, concentrating strictly on technical issues. There is no need to mention the anti-cold fusion hysteria of the last 20 years. We need to describe the results, but we should avoid experimental jargon. I recommend a short message signed by many people. I have not thought much about what the content should be, but it should be short and to the point. The person reading it will be extremely busy so we must get right to the point and say everything we need to say in two or three short paragraphs. I would make the tone similar to the standard response I send to people who attacked cold fusion: Cold fusion was replicated by hundreds of world-class laboratories, and these replications were published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. You will find a bibliography of over 3,000 papers and the full text from over 500 papers here: http://lenr-canr.org; (I just sent a copy to Charles Seife, the author of the new book.) The letter has to be a little longer than this but it should have the same tone. It should be an open letter meaning we circulate copies everywhere and upload them to various websites. I suppose the main points we want to make are: Cold fusion, the Fleischmann and Pons effect, has been replicated by hundreds of scientists, and these replications have been published in roughly 1000 peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals. The effect has produced as much as 10,000 times more energy per gram of fuel than any chemical reaction can, and no chemical ash has been detected, so it is a nuclear reaction. It has produced temperatures and power density equal to the core of a conventional fission reactor. At present, the cold fusion effect cannot be easily reproduced or controlled, but if it can be controlled it may become a useful source of energy. It produces virtually no pollution; the fuel source is inexhaustible; and the energy will be far cheaper than any alternative. We believe that the federal government should allocate between five and $10 million a year to this research. Many qualified fellow researchers would like to perform cold fusion research, but they have not been funded. I would make the letter not much longer or more detailed than this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:21:26 -0400: Hi, [snip] We believe that the federal government should allocate between five and $10 million a year to this research. Many qualified fellow researchers would like to perform cold fusion research, but they have not been funded. [snip] When you specify an amount, you run the risk of creating an artificial ceiling that you may come to regret. OTOH if you don't specify an amount you run the risk of getting too little. Perhaps you could just say that at least x number of researchers should be supported? Also, it may not hurt to remind that the review panel said that some research should be supported. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
I assume Obama will win. This is probably good news for us. His people are highly in tune with technology and change. A liberal broad church. No Creationists, lobby, war or mad greedy lobby in the democrat camp. Robin When you specify an amount, you run the risk of creating an artificial ceiling that you may come to regret. OTOH if you don't specify an amount you run the risk of getting too little. Nice to have educated people not greedy salesmen types controlling your existence, know the price of everything and the value of nothing. _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 October 2008 20:21 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion After the election, I think it would be a good idea for cold fusion researchers to make a concerted effort to approach the incoming administration. We should find out who has been tapped for the secretary of energy and/or who the elected president's energy advisors are, and try to approach those people. We should approach anyone who might have access to the nascent administration, along with influential people who have expressed sympathy for cold fusion, such as Llewellyn King. There will be millions of e-mails and letters sent to the new administration so it will be difficult to get through this blizzard, but perhaps if we act in concert and we sound like highly responsible mainstream people and we can generate a signal above the noise level. I assume Obama will win. This is probably good news for us. His people are highly in tune with technology and change. I have first-hand personal experience with this, working as a volunteer for the campaign. They have used computers and other technology in ways that never would have occurred to me, and I pride myself on being a forward-looking, with-it kind of guy. (Whether Obama himself is highly computer literate does not matter; he hires people who are and he gives them free reign to do what they want to do.) Obama and his people are also extremely well-organized and responsive. Quoting an expert on this: [Obama] has the best political organization for a presidential campaign that I have ever seen here, Tom Slade, a former [Florida] state Republican chairman, said of Mr. Obama. Bar none. He has run a phenomenally good campaign. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/politics/25florida.html I have not had time to think about this lately, but I am going to circulate this memo to cold fusion researchers and interested people such as the readers of this list. Anyone who has ideas to contribute should post them here. I recommend a restrained, sensible tone, concentrating strictly on technical issues. There is no need to mention the anti-cold fusion hysteria of the last 20 years. We need to describe the results, but we should avoid experimental jargon. I recommend a short message signed by many people. I have not thought much about what the content should be, but it should be short and to the point. The person reading it will be extremely busy so we must get right to the point and say everything we need to say in two or three short paragraphs. I would make the tone similar to the standard response I send to people who attacked cold fusion: Cold fusion was replicated by hundreds of world-class laboratories, and these replications were published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. You will find a bibliography of over 3,000 papers and the full text from over 500 papers here: http://lenr-canr.org http://lenr-canr.org/ (I just sent a copy to Charles Seife, the author of the new book.) The letter has to be a little longer than this but it should have the same tone. It should be an open letter meaning we circulate copies everywhere and upload them to various websites. I suppose the main points we want to make are: Cold fusion, the Fleischmann and Pons effect, has been replicated by hundreds of scientists, and these replications have been published in roughly 1000 peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals. The effect has produced as much as 10,000 times more energy per gram of fuel than any chemical reaction can, and no chemical ash has been detected, so it is a nuclear reaction. It has produced temperatures and power density equal to the core of a conventional fission reactor. At present, the cold fusion effect cannot be easily reproduced or controlled, but if it can be controlled it may become a useful source of energy. It produces virtually no pollution; the fuel source is inexhaustible; and the energy will be far cheaper than any alternative. We believe that the federal government should allocate between five and $10 million a year to this research. Many qualified fellow researchers would like to perform cold fusion research, but they have not been funded. I would make the letter not much longer or more detailed than this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Remi, Add to the list... NO MONEY .. and you have a better picture to the new regime. Richard I assume Obama will win. This is probably good news for us. His people are highly in tune with technology and change. A liberal broad church. No Creationists, lobby, war or mad greedy lobby in the democrat camp.
RE: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Print gov. bonds, print money. Joe Soap picks the tax bill up in the future. It's tough sh.t, you want free market funny money instead? Just what is the difference anyway? Hyper inflated house prices is just the same legerdemain. Oh it's bedtime. _ From: R C Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 October 2008 22:03 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion Remi, Add to the list... NO MONEY .. and you have a better picture to the new regime. Richard I assume Obama will win. This is probably good news for us. His people are highly in tune with technology and change. A liberal broad church. No Creationists, lobby, war or mad greedy lobby in the democrat camp.
RE: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Clever guy: http://newdeal.feri.org/speeches/1932d.htm http://www.hpol.org/fdr/inaug/ Someone with balls, a clever Ivy Leaguer to command the economy over the craziness of the market being far from equilibrium. It's like settling a large wobbling bowl of water: you need to be bigger and stronger than it to have an overview of its behaviour to catch the chaotic oscillations and smooth them out. Once conditions have returned back to normal a light hand on the tiller is sufficient. Tough times need men with balls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6rDeOojFXk _ From: Remi Cornwall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 October 2008 22:39 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion Print gov. bonds, print money. Joe Soap picks the tax bill up in the future. It's tough sh.t, you want free market funny money instead? Just what is the difference anyway? Hyper inflated house prices is just the same legerdemain. Oh it's bedtime. _ From: R C Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 October 2008 22:03 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion Remi, Add to the list... NO MONEY .. and you have a better picture to the new regime. Richard I assume Obama will win. This is probably good news for us. His people are highly in tune with technology and change. A liberal broad church. No Creationists, lobby, war or mad greedy lobby in the democrat camp.
Re: [Vo]:The new administration and cold fusion
Okay, people, let's have a serious discussion of this. The election is just around the corner, and we should have the letter ready on day one, as the politicians say. Let's hear some suggestions -- wording, goals, people we should send it to, etc. I want to make it clear that I am not proposing this be an exclusive approach to the new administration. I hope that many other cold fusion researchers and supporters also try to make contact with the new admin. The more approaches we make, the more likely it is that one will get through. Ed Storms told me that other people are approaching Obama's people quietly. I am sure the Navy people are getting ready to make their case. That's fine. I am not proposing they stop, or combine forces with others on this letter, or that all CF researchers should agree on what is needed. But we do many things in parallel. The Navy people can contact the higher-ups in their organization while at the same time they sign a letter with other people outside the Navy. The one thing I would suggest is that we should not have two simultaneous campaigns to publish open letters by many CF researchers. That would confuse things. I propose to put it on its own HTML page at LENR-CANR. I wil keep the list of signatures current, if people start to respond. Steve Krivit and others can periodically copy the text, or just point to the HTML page, whichever they prefer. I think the letter should have the following characteristics: It should be very short. It should get right to the point, and be categorical. It should be non-technical. There is plenty of technical information available at LENR-CANR for those who want to learn more. It should make only a few points: that cold fusion is real and it may be able to solve the energy crisis. It should include nothing about the controversy, history, calorimetry, theory, present state of the art, reproducibility, or anything else. Again, such details are available for those who want them. It should make one or two specific recommendations: $5 or $10 million in government funding per year (or whatever dollar amount we agree on). No specifics about who gets the money or what they do with it. It should be signed by as many people as we can muster, especially people with impressive sounding titles. - Jed
