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 <[email protected]> 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&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. > > > > > > *From: *[email protected] > > > > “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 > > > > > > >
