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?
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:25 PM
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
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
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
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.