RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[Russ]

Nothing is better than field notes from observers of nature and its
ecologies. The jewel in this report is a big part of the solution to cold
fusion. It answers the question of how is the apparent energy of cold fusion
disseminated broadly instead of being locally destructive. That this layer
of UDD is able to withstand the laser, for more time than it ought to, is
quite sufficient evidence of the energy distribution characteristic of UDD,
and of the miracle CF clearly displays. We've known since Martin and Stan
showed it to be, nearly 30 years ago, that UDD is formed, they called it
high 'fugacity' but it is the same state. 

 

The high fugacity deuterium, HFD/HDD, is very much more flexible to the thin
layer of UDD in this work as it can and surely does exist in a variety of
bulk atom-ecologies. Clearly in some of those special atom ecosystems we
find cold fusion becomes prevalent. By the way such HFD is stable as Martin
used to say being 'gamma phase'.  In my work when sono-loaded palladium was
packed with HFD that HFD remained indefinitely stable as was evidenced in
x-ray diffraction studies of said material carried out by premier national
lab colleagues on the samples they assisted me in hands on effort to produce
on demand for them. Well not all of it was 'stable' as a great deal of it
was observed to have transformed into 4He deep inside the bulk metal. In
those helium rich ecologies the meta, palladium,  indeed was melted and
vapourized , but nearby the HFD/HDD remained in the less active sonofusion
zones. 

 

From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com [mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:59 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

 

Dave-

 

I had a similar question as to a measure of the energy produced by the laser
and the temperature of the material under the D protective coating. 

 

The following questions arise:

1.  Can H form the same protective coating?  
2.  Does the UDD have spin equal to 1  with its magnetic moment that
will not respond to the laser input?  I doubt it.
3.  Could the UDD be an  assemblage of Cooper pairs  with anti-parallel
spin  equal to 0 or a  BEC that reflects the laser photons?
4.  Are there minute impurities in the UDD that do absorb some of the
laser energy  and eventually get the UDD composite hot enough to come apart?
5.  Does the energy of the laser get transformed into potential energy
of the Cooper pairs suggested above during the long irradiation period?-
6.  Does increasing the power of the laser beam reduce the time required
to "blast thru" the protective coat  of UDD?
7.  How does a change of laser frequency change the results?

 

 

Bob Cook

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Dave Roberson <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:03 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

 

I just read the article and was left wondering whether or not the hydrogen
deposited upon the surface of the metal made it much more reflective at the
frequency of the laser.  That might explain why it took so much longer to
cut the metal.  Does anyone know whether or not the actual energy deposited
by the laser was measured?

 

Dave

 

Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>  for Windows
10

 

From: JonesBeene <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

 

 

This is good to see. 

 

I remember Mike from a few years ago. He is certainly diligent and
determined to find answers.  It is great to see that he has focused on
Holmlid - who is drawing experimenters because he offers a perspective that
is unique in a number of ways. 

 

Holmlid's work  is similar enough to Mills, for instance to give theoretical
credibility while also being different enough to allow easier replication.
Holmlid's recent patent application is almost a "how-to" since it discloses
almost every relevant detail of making UDD - unlike Mills who makes his
disclosures  as difficult as possible to replicate. 

 

The knock on Holmlid had been lack of independent replication. Now it looks
like that may change. One decent replication and the entire field can be
revived. New game.

 

But at least in this thread, it bears repeating that there are disruptive
technologies which may be best left to rot on the vine. at least so long as
there are terrorists out there. Not sure if UDD is one of those or not. But
Pandora's box is already open so there is no turning back on UDD.

 

 

 

From: Axil Axil <mailto:janap...@gmail.com> 

 

Holmlid replicator

 

http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2018/01/18/southern-utah-scientist-stu
dying-potentially-most-dense-material-our-solar-system

RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Dave—

I had a similar question as to a measure of the energy produced by the laser 
and the temperature of the material under the D protective coating.

The following questions arise:

  1.  Can H form the same protective coating?
  2.  Does the UDD have spin equal to 1  with its magnetic moment that will not 
respond to the laser input?  I doubt it.
  3.  Could the UDD be an  assemblage of Cooper pairs  with anti-parallel spin  
equal to 0 or a  BEC that reflects the laser photons?
  4.  Are there minute impurities in the UDD that do absorb some of the laser 
energy  and eventually get the UDD composite hot enough to come apart?
  5.  Does the energy of the laser get transformed into potential energy of the 
Cooper pairs suggested above during the long irradiation period?–
  6.  Does increasing the power of the laser beam reduce the time required to 
“blast thru” the protective coat  of UDD?
  7.  How does a change of laser frequency change the results?


Bob Cook











From: Dave Roberson<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:03 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

I just read the article and was left wondering whether or not the hydrogen 
deposited upon the surface of the metal made it much more reflective at the 
frequency of the laser.  That might explain why it took so much longer to cut 
the metal.  Does anyone know whether or not the actual energy deposited by the 
laser was measured?

Dave

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: JonesBeene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge


This is good to see.

I remember Mike from a few years ago. He is certainly diligent and determined 
to find answers.  It is great to see that he has focused on Holmlid - who is 
drawing experimenters because he offers a perspective that is unique in a 
number of ways.

Holmlid’s work  is similar enough to Mills, for instance to give theoretical 
credibility while also being different enough to allow easier replication. 
Holmlid’s recent patent application is almost a “how-to” since it discloses 
almost every relevant detail of making UDD - unlike Mills who makes his 
disclosures  as difficult as possible to replicate.

The knock on Holmlid had been lack of independent replication. Now it looks 
like that may change. One decent replication and the entire field can be 
revived. New game.

But at least in this thread, it bears repeating that there are disruptive 
technologies which may be best left to rot on the vine… at least so long as 
there are terrorists out there. Not sure if UDD is one of those or not. But 
Pandora’s box is already open so there is no turning back on UDD.



From: Axil Axil<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>

Holmlid replicator

http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2018/01/18/southern-utah-scientist-studying-potentially-most-dense-material-our-solar-system/1044139001/

JonesBeene wrote:

Do ”dark projects” exist in the National Labs? Of course they do. And a few 
dark projects undoubtedly derive from disparaged civilian experiments or 
uncrednetialed or cranky inventors. An example is the Hollywood actress who 
invented Spread Spectrum technology but never got a dime from the Pentagon.
It’s obvious that several National Labs have a strong  interest in the  
complete understanding of cold fusion. If it is nuclear and if it is real, then 
it is part of their mission.  They also have a long history of nondisclosure –  
a reflexive “top secret” stamp on the most mundane R This was engrained 
before the cold war.  All of the above is true, but it does not imply that cold 
fusion can be weaponized or that any Lab is hiding something.
Yet, it is a fair appraisal to say that if cold fusion is real, then a related 
dark project already exists in which important science may have been learned 
but which is not in the public record. Only if cold fusion is bad science would 
it be truly  ignored, and worse: it would be a likely ploy for someone 
well-connected (Garwin?) to say it is bad science, if the motive is to keep 
secrets deeply hidden.
Remember the story (probably true) that the great Teller (co-founder of LLNL) 
after first hearing about the cold fusion breakthrough in 1989 called 
Fleischman and essentially had only one question - “can you make a bomb out of 
it?” Teller got a “no” for an answer but that was probably not the 
end-of-story. The fact that the Navy and NASA allowed a bit of R to be 
published on LENR also means little – the information  could have been part of 
a larger ploy where someone was metaphorically throwing the dogs a bone.  Look 
at it this way: there is always a downside to complete disclosure (from the 
perspective of Labs which do military research) w

RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[Dave Roberson]

I just read the article and was left wondering whether or not the hydrogen 
deposited upon the surface of the metal made it much more reflective at the 
frequency of the laser.  That might explain why it took so much longer to cut 
the metal.  Does anyone know whether or not the actual energy deposited by the 
laser was measured?

Dave

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: JonesBeene
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge


This is good to see. 

I remember Mike from a few years ago. He is certainly diligent and determined 
to find answers.  It is great to see that he has focused on Holmlid - who is 
drawing experimenters because he offers a perspective that is unique in a 
number of ways. 

Holmlid’s work  is similar enough to Mills, for instance to give theoretical 
credibility while also being different enough to allow easier replication. 
Holmlid’s recent patent application is almost a “how-to” since it discloses 
almost every relevant detail of making UDD - unlike Mills who makes his 
disclosures  as difficult as possible to replicate. 

The knock on Holmlid had been lack of independent replication. Now it looks 
like that may change. One decent replication and the entire field can be 
revived. New game.

But at least in this thread, it bears repeating that there are disruptive 
technologies which may be best left to rot on the vine… at least so long as 
there are terrorists out there. Not sure if UDD is one of those or not. But 
Pandora’s box is already open so there is no turning back on UDD.



From: Axil Axil

Holmlid replicator

http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2018/01/18/southern-utah-scientist-studying-potentially-most-dense-material-our-solar-system/1044139001/

JonesBeene wrote:

Do ”dark projects” exist in the National Labs? Of course they do. And a few 
dark projects undoubtedly derive from disparaged civilian experiments or 
uncrednetialed or cranky inventors. An example is the Hollywood actress who 
invented Spread Spectrum technology but never got a dime from the Pentagon.
It’s obvious that several National Labs have a strong  interest in the  
complete understanding of cold fusion. If it is nuclear and if it is real, then 
it is part of their mission.  They also have a long history of nondisclosure –  
a reflexive “top secret” stamp on the most mundane R This was engrained 
before the cold war.  All of the above is true, but it does not imply that cold 
fusion can be weaponized or that any Lab is hiding something. 
Yet, it is a fair appraisal to say that if cold fusion is real, then a related 
dark project already exists in which important science may have been learned 
but which is not in the public record. Only if cold fusion is bad science would 
it be truly  ignored, and worse: it would be a likely ploy for someone 
well-connected (Garwin?) to say it is bad science, if the motive is to keep 
secrets deeply hidden. 
Remember the story (probably true) that the great Teller (co-founder of LLNL) 
after first hearing about the cold fusion breakthrough in 1989 called 
Fleischman and essentially had only one question - “can you make a bomb out of 
it?” Teller got a “no” for an answer but that was probably not the 
end-of-story. The fact that the Navy and NASA allowed a bit of R to be 
published on LENR also means little – the information  could have been part of 
a larger ploy where someone was metaphorically throwing the dogs a bone.  Look 
at it this way: there is always a downside to complete disclosure (from the 
perspective of Labs which do military research) whereas the only downside to 
secrecy is to delay civilian implementation. That may not be a bad thing as 
there are a few types of disruptive technology which are probably best to 
ignore.
Fast forward almost 30 years from Teller’s inquiry and another detail emerges 
that could be more ominous, assuming that “dense deuterium” is real (but 
acknowledging that there is no public proof that it is real). If dense 
deuterium exists as a resource for energy, then the answer to the original 
inquiry would take a U-turn to: “yes, a few ounces of UDD should make one hell 
of a compact explosive”… Nobody really wants to hear that, other than 
terrorists.
In fact, it could be the beginning of the end (for “civilization”) if true… not 
just the end of CO2 but the end of us. Planet of the Apes – here we come. 
So, are we better off to continue to act ignorant as far as proliferation is 
concerned -  or do we try to become proactive at some level? That is a very 
difficult question since there are probably only a handful of researchers at 
Los Alamos, Oak Ridge or LLNL who actually know the true answer to the cold 
fusion enigma (assuming that it is not “pathological science” from the start). 
They are unlikely to ever be talking about it. 
Anyway, the reason that Holmlid has not been replicated on UDD could be that he 
is operating in the realm

RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[JonesBeene]

This is good to see. 

I remember Mike from a few years ago. He is certainly diligent and determined 
to find answers.  It is great to see that he has focused on Holmlid - who is 
drawing experimenters because he offers a perspective that is unique in a 
number of ways. 

Holmlid’s work  is similar enough to Mills, for instance to give theoretical 
credibility while also being different enough to allow easier replication. 
Holmlid’s recent patent application is almost a “how-to” since it discloses 
almost every relevant detail of making UDD - unlike Mills who makes his 
disclosures  as difficult as possible to replicate. 

The knock on Holmlid had been lack of independent replication. Now it looks 
like that may change. One decent replication and the entire field can be 
revived. New game.

But at least in this thread, it bears repeating that there are disruptive 
technologies which may be best left to rot on the vine… at least so long as 
there are terrorists out there. Not sure if UDD is one of those or not. But 
Pandora’s box is already open so there is no turning back on UDD.



From: Axil Axil

Holmlid replicator

http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2018/01/18/southern-utah-scientist-studying-potentially-most-dense-material-our-solar-system/1044139001/

 JonesBeene wrote:

Do ”dark projects” exist in the National Labs? Of course they do. And a few 
dark projects undoubtedly derive from disparaged civilian experiments or 
uncrednetialed or cranky inventors. An example is the Hollywood actress who 
invented Spread Spectrum technology but never got a dime from the Pentagon.
It’s obvious that several National Labs have a strong  interest in the  
complete understanding of cold fusion. If it is nuclear and if it is real, then 
it is part of their mission.  They also have a long history of nondisclosure –  
a reflexive “top secret” stamp on the most mundane R This was engrained 
before the cold war.  All of the above is true, but it does not imply that cold 
fusion can be weaponized or that any Lab is hiding something. 
Yet, it is a fair appraisal to say that if cold fusion is real, then a related 
dark project already exists in which important science may have been learned 
but which is not in the public record. Only if cold fusion is bad science would 
it be truly  ignored, and worse: it would be a likely ploy for someone 
well-connected (Garwin?) to say it is bad science, if the motive is to keep 
secrets deeply hidden. 
Remember the story (probably true) that the great Teller (co-founder of LLNL) 
after first hearing about the cold fusion breakthrough in 1989 called 
Fleischman and essentially had only one question - “can you make a bomb out of 
it?” Teller got a “no” for an answer but that was probably not the 
end-of-story. The fact that the Navy and NASA allowed a bit of R to be 
published on LENR also means little – the information  could have been part of 
a larger ploy where someone was metaphorically throwing the dogs a bone.  Look 
at it this way: there is always a downside to complete disclosure (from the 
perspective of Labs which do military research) whereas the only downside to 
secrecy is to delay civilian implementation. That may not be a bad thing as 
there are a few types of disruptive technology which are probably best to 
ignore.
Fast forward almost 30 years from Teller’s inquiry and another detail emerges 
that could be more ominous, assuming that “dense deuterium” is real (but 
acknowledging that there is no public proof that it is real). If dense 
deuterium exists as a resource for energy, then the answer to the original 
inquiry would take a U-turn to: “yes, a few ounces of UDD should make one hell 
of a compact explosive”… Nobody really wants to hear that, other than 
terrorists.
In fact, it could be the beginning of the end (for “civilization”) if true… not 
just the end of CO2 but the end of us. Planet of the Apes – here we come. 
So, are we better off to continue to act ignorant as far as proliferation is 
concerned -  or do we try to become proactive at some level? That is a very 
difficult question since there are probably only a handful of researchers at 
Los Alamos, Oak Ridge or LLNL who actually know the true answer to the cold 
fusion enigma (assuming that it is not “pathological science” from the start). 
They are unlikely to ever be talking about it. 
Anyway, the reason that Holmlid has not been replicated on UDD could be that he 
is operating in the realm of self-delusion and never had what he thought he 
had. He would be in good company there. In a way, it may be best if this null 
assessment is accurate and there is no such thing as UDD, at least not a 
resource which can be used for energy. It is impossible to have it both ways – 
cheap energy at no risk of weaponization. 
Wind farms and solar cells may have to suffice as the best we can do in clear 
energy  for the next few decades. But hey - that’s not so bad. You can’t 
weaponize a wind mill (unless your 

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid replicator

http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2018/01/18/southern-utah-scientist-studying-potentially-most-dense-material-our-solar-system/1044139001/

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:06 AM, JonesBeene  wrote:

>
>
> Do ”dark projects” exist in the National Labs? Of course they do. And a
> few dark projects undoubtedly derive from disparaged civilian experiments
> or uncrednetialed or cranky inventors. An example is the Hollywood actress
> who invented Spread Spectrum technology but never got a dime from the
> Pentagon.
>
>
>
> It’s obvious that several National Labs have a strong  interest in the
> complete understanding of cold fusion. If it is nuclear and if it is real,
> then it is part of their mission.  They also have a long history of
> nondisclosure –  a reflexive “top secret” stamp on the most mundane R
> This was engrained before the cold war.  All of the above is true, but it
> does not imply that cold fusion can be weaponized or that any Lab is hiding
> something.
>
>
>
> Yet, it is a fair appraisal to say that if cold fusion is real, then a
> related dark project already exists in which important science may have
> been learned but which is not in the public record. Only if cold fusion is
> bad science would it be truly  ignored, and worse: it would be a likely
> ploy for someone well-connected (Garwin?) to say it is bad science, if the
> motive is to keep secrets deeply hidden.
>
>
>
> Remember the story (probably true) that the great Teller (co-founder of
> LLNL) after first hearing about the cold fusion breakthrough in 1989 called
> Fleischman and essentially had only one question - “can you make a bomb out
> of it?” Teller got a “no” for an answer but that was probably not the
> end-of-story. The fact that the Navy and NASA allowed a bit of R to be
> published on LENR also means little – the information  could have been part
> of a larger ploy where someone was metaphorically throwing the dogs a
> bone.  Look at it this way: there is always a downside to complete
> disclosure (from the perspective of Labs which do military research)
> whereas the only downside to secrecy is to delay civilian implementation.
> That may not be a bad thing as there are a few types of disruptive
> technology which are probably best to ignore.
>
>
>
> Fast forward almost 30 years from Teller’s inquiry and another detail
> emerges that could be more ominous, assuming that “dense deuterium” is real
> (but acknowledging that there is no public proof that it is real). If dense
> deuterium exists as a resource for energy, then the answer to the original
> inquiry would take a U-turn to: “yes, a few ounces of UDD should make one
> hell of a compact explosive”… Nobody really wants to hear that, other than
> terrorists.
>
>
>
> In fact, it could be the beginning of the end (for “civilization”) if
> true… not just the end of CO2 but the end of us. Planet of the Apes – here
> we come.
>
>
>
> So, are we better off to continue to act ignorant as far as proliferation
> is concerned -  or do we try to become proactive at some level? That is a
> very difficult question since there are probably only a handful of
> researchers at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge or LLNL who actually know the true
> answer to the cold fusion enigma (assuming that it is not “pathological
> science” from the start). They are unlikely to ever be talking about it.
>
>
>
> Anyway, the reason that Holmlid has not been replicated on UDD could be
> that he is operating in the realm of self-delusion and never had what he
> thought he had. He would be in good company there. In a way, it may be best
> if this null assessment is accurate and there is no such thing as UDD, at
> least not a resource which can be used for energy. It is impossible to have
> it both ways – cheap energy at no risk of weaponization.
>
>
>
> Wind farms and solar cells may have to suffice as the best we can do in
> clear energy  for the next few decades. But hey - that’s not so bad. You
> can’t weaponize a wind mill (unless your name is Cervantes)…
>
>
>
> It bears repeating that a few types of disruptive technology are probably
> best left to rot on the vine… at least so long as there are terrorists out
> there.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *bobcook39...@hotmail.com
>
>
>
> “How do you know this? If it is classified or "dark government," how did
> you find out about it? That would be secret, would it not?”
>
>
>
> That information is personally confidential and only being asserted by Bob
> Cook, like much of the correspondence of Vortex-l, Twitter, Facebook, main
> news media, The Executive, etc.,etc.,etc.  It could be merely fake news.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[JonesBeene]

From: Jed Rothwell

[snip] A famous example of a dark project that was a waste of time & money was 
when the CIA raised a sunken Russian submarine K129, with help from Howard 
Hughes. I read that by the time they recovered it, the technology was long 
obsolete and they learned nothing of importance. That was in the book "Blind 
Man's Bluff" as I recall.


Well, there is a more interesting book and another possibility - good 
entertainment if nothing else… maybe a more accurate version of the Hunt for 
Red October. In fact, Clancy’s inspiration.
Red Star Rogue by Kenneth Sewell makes the claim that we recovered virtually 
all of K-129 while irradiating the Glomar crew - and an elaborate cover-up was 
put in place to hide that fact. The underlying premise of Red Star Rogue is 
almost certainly exaggerated by the China connection which is tenuous - but 
many of the details have turned out to be accurate. There is no doubt that 
massive contamination due to plutonium was found (independently and in an area 
which was suspiciously near Hawaii). As for the tech -it was an antiquated 
diesel sub and we already had the code books so the getting the tech was always 
a fake motivation. We wanted to know who set off the nuke.
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Star-Rogue-Submarines-Nuclear/dp/0743261127/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8=1519777302=8
It is likely that the nuclear detonator of a missile was triggered, not by 
accident and thankfully not the payload but that this may have been a fail-safe 
mechanism which was actually directed by a Soviet Admiral who figured out what 
was going on by the rogues. This is different from Clancy’s premise. 
A fail-safe device was known to be designed to be activated in the event of an 
unauthorized “fire” command and that is where the “rogue” part comes in. But 
who knows what strange machinations were going on when you put China into the 
equation. Sewell claims the soured relations between China and Russia was the 
outcome of the deep plan of Nixon and Kissinger, and this is involved as the 
motive for the K-129 incident. The sub or one like it may have been promised or 
to be  sold to China.
The real goal of Glomar was not the nuclear weapons or the code systems but 
finding the orders (or lack thereof) and crew identity to  determine of what 
K-129 was doing at 40N/180W "where she did not belong" and not where we said 
she was found, and who was actually onboard. A  Chinese presence was located in 
the area and kept silent. That much is probably true. 
This information was supposedly used by Kissinger in dealings with Brezhnev and 
started the string of events leading to the collapse of the USSR.  In the end, 
this book may be part of an attempt to rehabilitate Nixon by Sewell and maybe 
Dick deserves the credit… but the episode and double-cross was probably Henry’s 
idea … and it may have been brilliant. Henry was so Dr. Strangelove…
… no fighting in the War Room !!!

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>

> Do ”dark projects” exist in the National Labs? Of course they do.
>

Yes, of course they do. But we don't hear about them because they are dark.

We sometimes hear about them long after they finish. It turns out most of
them are a waste of money. But that is true of most R projects, both
light and dark, government and industrial.

My guess is that dark projects are more prone to be a waste, because they
are not reviewed or critiqued by a wide range of people. Most of the secret
projects I have heard about in cold fusion were a waste. Most scientific
secrets are not worth keeping secret, and not worth knowing about. Secret
business plans that I have heard of usually turn out to be stupid.

A famous example of a dark project that was a waste of time & money was
when the CIA raised a sunken Russian submarine K129, with help from Howard
Hughes. I read that by the time they recovered it, the technology was long
obsolete and they learned nothing of importance. That was in the book
"Blind Man's Bluff" as I recall.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jones—

I could go on and on about other possible examples of government/National lab 
cover-ups.  MHO (my humble opinion) is the same as you expressed below:

Do ”dark projects” exist in the National Labs? Of course they do. And a few 
dark projects undoubtedly derive from disparaged civilian experiments or 
uncrednetialed or cranky inventors. An example is the Hollywood actress who 
invented Spread Spectrum technology but never got a dime from the Pentagon.

It’s obvious that several National Labs have a strong  interest in the  
complete understanding of cold fusion. If it is nuclear and if it is real, then 
it is part of their mission.  They also have a long history of nondisclosure –  
a reflexive “top secret” stamp on the most mundane R This was engrained 
before the cold war.  All of the above is true, but it does not imply that cold 
fusion can be weaponized or that any Lab is hiding something.

Yet, it is a fair appraisal to say that if cold fusion is real, then a related 
dark project already exists in which important science may have been learned 
but which is not in the public record. Only if cold fusion is bad science would 
it be truly  ignored, and worse: it would be a likely ploy for someone 
well-connected (Garwin?) to say it is bad science, if the motive is to keep 
secrets deeply hidden.

Remember the story (probably true) that the great Teller (co-founder of LLNL) 
after first hearing about the cold fusion breakthrough in 1989 called 
Fleischman and essentially had only one question - “can you make a bomb out of 
it?” Teller got a “no” for an answer but that was probably not the 
end-of-story. The fact that the Navy and NASA allowed a bit of R to be 
published on LENR also means little – the information  could have been part of 
a larger ploy where someone was metaphorically throwing the dogs a bone.  Look 
at it this way: there is always a downside to complete disclosure (from the 
perspective of Labs which do military research) whereas the only downside to 
secrecy is to delay civilian implementation. That may not be a bad thing as 
there are a few types of disruptive technology which are probably best to 
ignore.

Fast forward almost 30 years from Teller’s inquiry and another detail emerges 
that could be more ominous, assuming that “dense deuterium” is real (but 
acknowledging that there is no public proof that it is real). If dense 
deuterium exists as a resource for energy, then the answer to the original 
inquiry would take a U-turn to: “yes, a few ounces of UDD should make one hell 
of a compact explosive”… Nobody really wants to hear that, other than 
terrorists.

In fact, it could be the beginning of the end (for “civilization”) if true… not 
just the end of CO2 but the end of us. Planet of the Apes – here we come.

So, are we better off to continue to act ignorant as far as proliferation is 
concerned -  or do we try to become proactive at some level? That is a very 
difficult question since there are probably only a handful of researchers at 
Los Alamos, Oak Ridge or LLNL who actually know the true answer to the cold 
fusion enigma (assuming that it is not “pathological science” from the start). 
They are unlikely to ever be talking about it.

Anyway, the reason that Holmlid has not been replicated on UDD could be that he 
is operating in the realm of self-delusion and never had what he thought he 
had. He would be in good company there. In a way, it may be best if this null 
assessment is accurate and there is no such thing as UDD, at least not a 
resource which can be used for energy. It is impossible to have it both ways – 
cheap energy at no risk of weaponization.

Wind farms and solar cells may have to suffice as the best we can do in clear 
energy  for the next few decades. But hey - that’s not so bad. You can’t 
weaponize a wind mill (unless your name is Cervantes)…

It bears repeating that a few types of disruptive technology are probably best 
left to rot on the vine… at least so long as there are terrorists out there.

_


Since I tend to believe the Mill’s theory about hydrino’s and evidence for same 
UHH 50 years ago, I have wondered why UDD has not been measured by Mills.

I would bet that Shelby Brewer and other “connected folks” who were directors 
of Black Light Power in the 1990’s (see the link to the BLP item with its list 
of directors in this thread) asked the question and decided not to pursue the 
question for one reason or another.  And Mills is making good hay ($$$) 
following their advice not to pursue the question  and to delay release of his 
technology, keeping it out of the public domain.

Brewer,  who is now passed on, apparently indorsed the following about Mills 
and BLP:

“I grew up and was educated (1960s) in a time when Einstein’s lifelong (but 
unattained) quest for a unified field theory was celebrated rather anecdotally, 
as a sort of historical curiosity. One spoke of theories as â ˜tools set” or  a 
˜model 

RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[JonesBeene]

Do ”dark projects” exist in the National Labs? Of course they do. And a few 
dark projects undoubtedly derive from disparaged civilian experiments or 
uncrednetialed or cranky inventors. An example is the Hollywood actress who 
invented Spread Spectrum technology but never got a dime from the Pentagon.

It’s obvious that several National Labs have a strong  interest in the  
complete understanding of cold fusion. If it is nuclear and if it is real, then 
it is part of their mission.  They also have a long history of nondisclosure –  
a reflexive “top secret” stamp on the most mundane R This was engrained 
before the cold war.  All of the above is true, but it does not imply that cold 
fusion can be weaponized or that any Lab is hiding something. 

Yet, it is a fair appraisal to say that if cold fusion is real, then a related 
dark project already exists in which important science may have been learned 
but which is not in the public record. Only if cold fusion is bad science would 
it be truly  ignored, and worse: it would be a likely ploy for someone 
well-connected (Garwin?) to say it is bad science, if the motive is to keep 
secrets deeply hidden.

Remember the story (probably true) that the great Teller (co-founder of LLNL) 
after first hearing about the cold fusion breakthrough in 1989 called 
Fleischman and essentially had only one question - “can you make a bomb out of 
it?” Teller got a “no” for an answer but that was probably not the 
end-of-story. The fact that the Navy and NASA allowed a bit of R to be 
published on LENR also means little – the information  could have been part of 
a larger ploy where someone was metaphorically throwing the dogs a bone.  Look 
at it this way: there is always a downside to complete disclosure (from the 
perspective of Labs which do military research) whereas the only downside to 
secrecy is to delay civilian implementation. That may not be a bad thing as 
there are a few types of disruptive technology which are probably best to 
ignore.

Fast forward almost 30 years from Teller’s inquiry and another detail emerges 
that could be more ominous, assuming that “dense deuterium” is real (but 
acknowledging that there is no public proof that it is real). If dense 
deuterium exists as a resource for energy, then the answer to the original 
inquiry would take a U-turn to: “yes, a few ounces of UDD should make one hell 
of a compact explosive”… Nobody really wants to hear that, other than 
terrorists.

In fact, it could be the beginning of the end (for “civilization”) if true… not 
just the end of CO2 but the end of us. Planet of the Apes – here we come. 

So, are we better off to continue to act ignorant as far as proliferation is 
concerned -  or do we try to become proactive at some level? That is a very 
difficult question since there are probably only a handful of researchers at 
Los Alamos, Oak Ridge or LLNL who actually know the true answer to the cold 
fusion enigma (assuming that it is not “pathological science” from the start). 
They are unlikely to ever be talking about it. 

Anyway, the reason that Holmlid has not been replicated on UDD could be that he 
is operating in the realm of self-delusion and never had what he thought he 
had. He would be in good company there. In a way, it may be best if this null 
assessment is accurate and there is no such thing as UDD, at least not a 
resource which can be used for energy. It is impossible to have it both ways – 
cheap energy at no risk of weaponization. 

Wind farms and solar cells may have to suffice as the best we can do in clear 
energy  for the next few decades. But hey - that’s not so bad. You can’t 
weaponize a wind mill (unless your name is Cervantes)…

It bears repeating that a few types of disruptive technology are probably best 
left to rot on the vine… at least so long as there are terrorists out there.


From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com

“How do you know this? If it is classified or "dark government," how did you 
find out about it? That would be secret, would it not?”  

That information is personally confidential and only being asserted by Bob 
Cook, like much of the correspondence of Vortex-l, Twitter, Facebook, main news 
media, The Executive, etc.,etc.,etc.  It could be merely fake news.  

Bob Cook

RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jed Asked: “How do you know this? If it is classified or "dark government," how 
did you find out about it? That would be secret, would it not?”

That information is personally confidential and only being asserted by Bob 
Cook, like much of the correspondence of Vortex-l, Twitter, Facebook, main news 
media, The Executive, etc.,etc.,etc.  It could be merely fake news.

Bob Cook


Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Alain Sepeda<mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 12:33 AM
To: Vortex List<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

many things governement do are not done because it is good or bad for a supreme 
interest of the Nation, or of a big lobby, but because the worker want to avoid 
troubles, please his boss, get a promotion, or sometime a crazy desire by this 
lone worker to make world better as he imagine it.
the problem is when this lone worker is a boss, he can engage an agency in 
something great or evil, if he succeed in making the interests of his 
subordinates matching his great idea.

There is no NASA/NSA/DoE/USPTO plan, just various people having various 
ambition, fears, and hope.

fear is a great motive for most people...

2018-02-22 0:16 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell 
<jedrothw...@gmail.com<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>>:
bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Oak Ridge has LENR categorized as Battelle confidential or has a dark 
government classified program regarding LENR or cold fusion as it is commonly 
called.  Their action to remove the reference is telling IMHO

How do you know this? If it is classified or "dark government," how did you 
find out about it? That would be secret, would it not?

I have a low regard for the government's ability to keep secrets, and for the 
quality of its secrets, because my late father was in the intelligence business 
during and after WWII. He once told me:

"if you ever get into the most secret room of the State Department, and you 
open the most secret file cabinet and look in the most secret drawer, you will 
find a dried up apple and an old newspaper."

In the movie Dr. Strangelove, toward the end the Americans ask the Soviet 
ambassador where he got all of his sensitive secret information. He says, "our 
source was the New York Times." My mother heard that and said "that sounds 
about right."

As far as I know, when references to cold fusion have disappeared from 
government agencies, news articles and the like, that has been because people 
were embarrassed by the topic, or because the top brass was infuriated by it. 
That happened in some Navy research labs.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[Alain Sepeda]

many things governement do are not done because it is good or bad for a
supreme interest of the Nation, or of a big lobby, but because the worker
want to avoid troubles, please his boss, get a promotion, or sometime a
crazy desire by this lone worker to make world better as he imagine it.
the problem is when this lone worker is a boss, he can engage an agency in
something great or evil, if he succeed in making the interests of his
subordinates matching his great idea.

There is no NASA/NSA/DoE/USPTO plan, just various people having various
ambition, fears, and hope.

fear is a great motive for most people...

2018-02-22 0:16 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:
>
> Oak Ridge has LENR categorized as Battelle confidential or has a dark
>> government classified program regarding LENR or cold fusion as it is
>> commonly called.  Their action to remove the reference is telling IMHO
>>
>
> How do you know this? If it is classified or "dark government," how did
> you find out about it? That would be secret, would it not?
>
> I have a low regard for the government's ability to keep secrets, and for
> the quality of its secrets, because my late father was in the intelligence
> business during and after WWII. He once told me:
>
> "if you ever get into the most secret room of the State Department, and
> you open the most secret file cabinet and look in the most secret drawer,
> you will find a dried up apple and an old newspaper."
>
>
> In the movie Dr. Strangelove, toward the end the Americans ask the Soviet
> ambassador where he got all of his sensitive secret information. He says,
> "our source was the New York Times." My mother heard that and said "that
> sounds about right."
>
> As far as I know, when references to cold fusion have disappeared from
> government agencies, news articles and the like, that has been because
> people were embarrassed by the topic, or because the top brass was
> infuriated by it. That happened in some Navy research labs.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[Jed Rothwell]

bobcook39...@hotmail.com  wrote:

Oak Ridge has LENR categorized as Battelle confidential or has a dark
> government classified program regarding LENR or cold fusion as it is
> commonly called.  Their action to remove the reference is telling IMHO
>

How do you know this? If it is classified or "dark government," how did you
find out about it? That would be secret, would it not?

I have a low regard for the government's ability to keep secrets, and for
the quality of its secrets, because my late father was in the intelligence
business during and after WWII. He once told me:

"if you ever get into the most secret room of the State Department, and you
open the most secret file cabinet and look in the most secret drawer, you
will find a dried up apple and an old newspaper."


In the movie Dr. Strangelove, toward the end the Americans ask the Soviet
ambassador where he got all of his sensitive secret information. He says,
"our source was the New York Times." My mother heard that and said "that
sounds about right."

As far as I know, when references to cold fusion have disappeared from
government agencies, news articles and the like, that has been because
people were embarrassed by the topic, or because the top brass was
infuriated by it. That happened in some Navy research labs.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Oak Ridge has LENR categorized as Battelle confidential or has a dark 
government classified program regarding LENR or cold fusion as it is commonly 
called.  Their action to remove the reference is telling IMHO

.From: Jed Rothwell<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 5:04 PM
To: Vortex<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

Ah ha again. The reference to cold fusion has been removed from the article.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[Jed Rothwell]

Ah ha again. The reference to cold fusion has been removed from the article.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:


> I think the reporter is utterly confused. I saw nothing in the article that
> wasn't related to hot fusion, other than the words "cold fusion".
>

Ah, ha! There were 4 other words. It says "'cold fusion,' or a
low-temperature nuclear reaction." That's LENR, another name for
you-know-what. It seems unlikely to me the reporter came up with that on
his own. Someone probably told him "we call this a low-temperature nuclear
reaction." And *that* can only mean cold fusion.

The mystery deepens.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

I think there was sonoluminescent nuclear reaction with neutron production 
experments at Pacific  Northwest Labs and ORNL as recently as 3 years ago.

The researcher at PNL was G. Posakony who passed away about 2 years ago.  I 
read two draft papers by Posakony and a colleague at ORNL on the subject.  He 
was an active researcher up to a year before his death.  Over the years I 
discussed his work with him many times.

I will look into my boxes of stuff for more specifics.

Bob Cook


From: mix...@bigpond.com<mailto:mix...@bigpond.com>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 12:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:34:21 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Rusi Taleyarkhan was working at ORNL some years ago – therefore - they are
>> probably referring to sonofusion
>>
>
>Possibly, but it is present tense. The lab "is trying."

I think the reporter is utterly confused. I saw nothing in the article that
wasn't related to hot fusion, other than the words "cold fusion".

>
>There was some other research there long ago.
>
>- Jed
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:34:21 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>JonesBeene  wrote:
>
>
>> Rusi Taleyarkhan was working at ORNL some years ago – therefore - they are
>> probably referring to sonofusion
>>
>
>Possibly, but it is present tense. The lab "is trying."

I think the reporter is utterly confused. I saw nothing in the article that
wasn't related to hot fusion, other than the words "cold fusion".

>
>There was some other research there long ago.
>
>- Jed
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[Jed Rothwell]

JonesBeene  wrote:


> Rusi Taleyarkhan was working at ORNL some years ago – therefore - they are
> probably referring to sonofusion
>

Possibly, but it is present tense. The lab "is trying."

There was some other research there long ago.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[JonesBeene]

Jed 

Rusi Taleyarkhan was working at ORNL some years ago – therefore - they are 
probably referring to sonofusion

Jones


From: Jed Rothwell


https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2018/02/12/nuclear-fusion-could-be-a-silver-bullet-and-just-around-the-corner/#448cc3ac3747

QUOTE:

Another publicly-financed one is by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is 
trying to figure out “cold fusion,” or a low-temperature nuclear reaction.

That's all it says. I expect this is a misunderstanding. I doubt there is any 
cold fusion research.

I have not heard of this from any other source.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge

[Jed Rothwell]

I asked the Forbes author about this.

- Jed