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 <jone...@pacbell.net> 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: *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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to