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&D. 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&D 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 set”. The prevailing mentality was ˜one model does not fit all.” A model would work and be useful in one set of circumstances, but not another; use a model to get practical results, but a pursuit of absolute unifying truth was regarded largely as a waste of candle wax. Other characteristics of this time in science were intolerance, arrogance, and rigidity. Scientists preened and postured, became intensely political, and delegated the ˜doing™ of science to students. Science was becoming big science, a big governmental and corporate enterprise, demanding more resources and becoming less accountable. We now have an expensive standing army in American science, marching in place, with little creative, definable mission. Most of what passes for science is merely chauvinism , who has the largest accelerator, etc. Now along comes Randell Mills. Without expending billions or even millions or even hundreds of thousands of US taxpayers dollars, Dr. Mills has apparently completed Einstein’s quest for a unified field theory. Dr. Mills’s theory is presented in his book, /The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics/ (July 2002). This is a huge achievement for three reasons. First, the Mills Theory tidies up theoretical physics by stitching together quantum mechanics and relativity. That in itself is a major triumph. Second, and more important, the Mills Theory explains several major empirical anomalies that have vexed physicists for decades: the sun’s energy balance deficit; the dark matter in space phenomena; and mountains of atomic-electron spectral data that is inconsistent with prevailing theory. Third, the Mills Theory gives rise to the possibility of an inexhaustible energy source based on phenomenology not yet recognized and accepted by the scientific community. Remarkably, Dr. Mills has developed his theory and its energy generation application as an entrepreneur’s without largesse from the US Government, and without the benediction of the US scientific priesthood. Because his enterprise does not suffer these two impediments, it just might succeed. If so, Mills will be the next Thomas Edison.” /Shelby T. Brewer, former Assistant Secretary of Energy (top nuclear official in the Reagan Administration)/ I thought in the 1980’s that Brewer was a pretty good (honest broker) as DOE Secretaries go. Bob Cook
