MFMP to Form Charity for Live Open Science: New Fire Generation

There’s a very interesting article on Cold Fusion Now about the creation of a new charitable organization called New Fire Generation by the members of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project. The purpose of the charity will be to sponsor a new generation of scientific research based the Live Open Science (LOS) protocols — as has been demonstrated by the MFMP.

The charity will solicit funds from donors who will be able to designate the areas of interest they want their money to sponsor. Decisions regarding research activities to be sponsored by the organization will be made by a Science Advisory Board which initially be led by nuclear radiochemist Dr. Edmund Storms.

MFMP member Robert Ellefson, who will be the CEO of New Fire Generation explains:

“All organizations that we fund, or participate within the MFMP umbrella, are going to be required to use the Live Open Science protocols, and we’re working on a much more formalized definition of those protocols now.”

“In fact, it’s going into our Articles of Incorporation too, specifying that’s the mechanism by which we will be releasing the inventions that are contained in the data that we come out with. We’ll be publishing officially using Live Open Science.”

From the New Fire Generation Mission Statement:

All of the Intellectual Property (IP) developed for these Love Open Science infrastructure objectives will be expressly dedicated to the public domain, and will avoid incorporation of private IP into the resulting work products.

New Fire Generation will have a lifespan of only four years. The goal seems to be to set a movement in place, and once it is established, get out of the way and allow it to run on its own momentum.

It appears that the project is still in the organizational stages, and I expect we will hear more about it in time on the MFMP’s web site.

  • Chris I

    e-gosh! This might help to avoid monopolies on the new kind of energy sources.

  • Kim

    Defkalion will go public on November 1st.

    This will put pressure on the Mainstream News.

    More Transparency will be needed for them.

    We still do not have consensus on the theory.

    As the reality of the New Fire Spreads, the prize
    for the concensus theory will rise higher and higher.
    This is what is happening now. They know its real, but
    who will rise to the occasion and fill the great Cold Fusion

    The 1.6 Tesla is still an enigma and I look forward to more
    revelations about this.

    Rossi is polishing his products, as this will be necessary when
    he makes his next announcement.

    His next announcement will drive a stake! and then the frenzy
    for the theory consensus prize will get even higher.


    • Ted-X

      We should not insist on a single “acceptable” theory. I would prefer 3 to 5 theories, which we could rank. Anyway, the “accepted” theories are not perfect, so we have various “anomalous effects” in so many fields (see Wikipedia for a few pages listing of anomalous effects). Popper said that THEORIES CAN ONLY BE DISPROVED and that there is NO WAY TO PROVE that this or the other theory is “CORRECT”. Few people think about this, but Popper’s thought should be in the introduction to every science course and discussion. Popper’s statement is just PURE LOGIC.
      The 1.6 Tesla magnetic field (unless 1.6 T is a typo) is the strangest thing. The material is amorphous, so no direction should be preferred, while magnetic fields have the N and S poles (unless the magnetic field is a MONOPOLY, which would be REALLY STRANGE).

      • Chris I

        The trouble is I’m not sure you fully understand Popper’s reasoning. It is very well known anyway. It has come to be one of the most widely known things in epistemology. Oddly enough it is much more known than the more fundamental problem of induction which traces back to Hume at the very least and which certainly is pure logic. It is what led Popper to his answer of falsification instead of verification.

        However, the step from Hume’s problem to Popper’s arguments is a quite trivial one, despite how many people had been barking up wrong trees. Galileo had placed much emphasis on rejecting theories, but a lot of folks beyond the Alps apparently paid more attention to Bacon, who gave induction all the importance. Besides, Popper was sloppy.

        In any case I’m not 100% sure of exactly what you mean about preferring to “rank” as many theories as possible, but it doesn’t strike me exactly what Popper said. Either they are incompatible and must be selected from, rejecting some by contrary evidence, or they ought to be worked into a generalizing framework which determines what each of them is most suitable for (unless they are perfectly equivalent and thus pure metaphysics).

        • Ted-X

          The personality of Popper or his other theories are not relevant here. I am pointing out that most people want to know the “right theory”, while in fact all the theories are only approximations and have limitations, so we are never certain, for example, what is the structure of the nucleus and which model is the “correct one” (about 12 to chose from?). Assuming that our theories are correct leads to rejection of FACTS, such as “anomalies”; the “anomalies” should be probably renamed to “FACTS not fitting the theories”.

          • fortyniner

            All theories are equal, but some are more equal than others.

          • Chris I

            I wasn’t talking about his personality; I was talking about his work.

            The many (only 12????????) models of the nucleus are a good example, except for being models more than “theories” which is a subtly distinct thing. QCD is pretty much intractible, so of course folks are still groping around with models instead of directly applying quantum field theory, with the known fermions and the known interaction bosons. This just isn’t feasible, so less direct approaches are inevitable. Especially if you count that the same thing goes for single hadrons too, and no doubt a model for large nuclei must contemplate all kinds of combinations as being potentially present (i. e. having some amplitude value) in all possible states, which however can’t be expected quite equal to their states outside. Whew!

            Now I have a conjecture that, due to just this high complexity, there might be reasons for Gamow not being so useful in the highly loaded nickel hydride, for computing the tunnelling rate of the protons through the Coulomb barrier. AFAIK Gamov assumes homogeneous charge-mass ratio. But that’s just dumb old me and I don’t know much at all about nuclear.

    • Jorge

      I’m afraid you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.
      First, Defkalion does not seem to have yet something solid and market wordy. At most a very convincing prototype. At least from what I’ve seen so far. Therefore the idea of going public seems at the very least ludicrous. But, who knows, they’ll pull a rabbit out of the hat.
      Second, don’t think Rossi it’s polishing up his products. Being an engineer myself I expect him to be in that long phase of converting a lab worthy prototype into something that can be used by clients who are not scientists but mere operators. And that it’s a phase that takes years.
      So, although I share your faith in the technology, I will keep the bubbly in the freezer.

      • Jimr

        Jorge, as for Rossi i agree we will not see a large number of units for some time. I don’ t believe they will build many 1 mw units containing 100-300 ecats. They will develop a 100kw and 1mw single unit before they are heavily marketed.

        • fortyniner

          Yes – probably multi-tube boilers or oil heaters that use multiples of c.10kW ‘gas cats’ mounted between endplates to deliver any required output up to several MW. IMHO that is where most current R&D will be focused, in order to come up with ‘drop in’ designs to directly replace existing coal, oil and (primarily) gas fired boilers.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      I can see Defkalion’s “red herring” statement in their prospectus “We are, and can be in the future, sued for stealing the technology used to make our products.”

    • Warthog

      Theory is irrelevant to the reality or non-reality of LENR/CF. One does NOT need a theoretical explanation for a physical phenomenon to be judged “real”. One of THE most damaging things that the skeptopaths have done to science is to keep shouting “it isn’t real until there’s a theory”. I can’t think of any profanity that is adquate to describe those that are selling this anti-science “meme”. Pseudo-science from “pseudo-skeptics”. But “we” are aiding and abetting them, by not pointing out that such viewpoint IS NOT SCIENCE.

      The folks that got the Nobel prize for detection of the microwave background of the universe had no idea “why” that background existed.

      High-temperature superconductivity has been accepted as scientifically real for decades…..but no theory exists that explains it.

      So PLEASE, stop with the “we need a theory” rhetoric.

      • fortyniner

        Agreed. In any case, when working commercial reactors are available for experimental testing and before/after fuel analysis, the various theories can be validated or falsified against actual measurements.

        • Warthog

          Also agreed. But the mere fact that we are reduced to waiting until “when working commercial reactors are available” shows how badly science has already been damaged. There are sufficient amounts of good, hard-core scientific reports that show LENR happening to convince honest “scientific skeptics”, but that hasn’t happened.

    • roseland67


      I respectfully disagree.

      The news of Defkalion going public will be met with a ho-hum yawn and virtually no media coverage.
      Mainstream science/business will brand any investor as a
      “windmill tilting, fool and his money are soon parted” goof.

      If and when, a fully functional reactor with a COP > 1
      is publicly released for purchase to anyone, anywhere, then we will see some positive media coverage.

      At this time we will also see academia coming out of the woodwork all across the globe saying, “We told you so, we knew it all along”, when now they won’t even return a phone call about it.

      In Chicago, I wait.

      • Fibb

        There will be no yawns if they disclose partnerships with the likes of Fiat and Airbus. Did you already forget the part where they said they will have to name their partners to go public.

    • Sanjeev

      The most important thing about DGT going to stock market, people often forget, is not whether people will buy it or whether DGT will elope with the money, its that their partners will surface. Watch the drama after that.

  • GreenWin

    The MFMP continues to set high standards of ethical behavior with respect to energy and New Fire. There is little reason why private funding for public benefit cannot work. One might wonder why public funding for public benefit has fumbled. In an apt “typo” Admin quotes: “All of the Intellectual Property (IP) developed for these Love Open Science infrastructure objectives will be expressly dedicated to the public domain…”

    Distributed Energy Resources to avoid future Fukushimas

    The California Public Utilities Commission that regulates utility operators is about to adopt legislation that requires utilities to “to consider and procure clean distributed energy resources to meet distribution grid needs as a part of the electrical corporation’s transmission and distribution grid infrastructure investments.”

    More evidence that Germany, the US, Scandanavian nations, etc. are actively adopting the DER energy model. This is a step toward the new energy paradigm that decentralizes energy production and literally empowers the grid customer. It is an expensive step as we have seen in Germany. After abandoning nuclear energy Germany adopted significant feed-in tariffs to encourage home and business owners to install DERs, mostly solar. It has resulted in Germany generating some 60% of their electrical energy from rooftop PV (solar panels) and wind. But to finance the feed-in tariffs Germans pay about four times the actual value of their electricity. The rates are expected to come down as more DERs come online.

    The good news is utility operators are giving up their monopolies on energy generation. By allowing grid customers to generate their own energy and sell it back to the grid, the centralized power model is opened up. This spells good news for LENR as it is poised to be THE most efficient, clean, economical DER in the toolshed.

    It may still be a while before the PTB are forced to utter the words “cold fusion,” but the infrastructure is being realigned in preparation for the day. The short term is likely to adopt microgrids and “district” (small community) DERs. But following Germany’s PV success, we can expect LENR to be a consumer option long term. Will utilities go along with customers eventual disconnect from the grid? Utilities with long term vision will as they learn to adapt their product and services to the new market. Those who refuse or resist the inevitable, will go the way of the ice man and buggy maker.

    In light of the continuing evironmental disaster at Fukushima Japan, and the failure of nuclear power to exist without huge government subsidies, DER looks to be THE most viable path to a new energy paradigm. Even better, DERs are non-radiative technologies, meaning we can finally give up fission-based nuclear energy. While some argue it’s better than coal (it is re air quality) the geopolitical dangers of nuke meltdowns, radiation disease, radioactive waste disposal, and security threats FAR outweigh any real benefit.

    • eernie1

      Greenwin, Can you give me a synopsis of how many lives were lost because of all reported nuclear disasters? You must be an expert on this subject because of the many posts you have contributed. I wont even ask you subtract the 5 or 6 million Japanese and Allied forces lives saved by ending the WW2 conflict. I have a personal interest in the result of ending the war since I was about to be drafted and sent to the South Pacific area. No doubt I would have been involved in the ensuing action. The only documented lost life caused by the recent Japanese event I have seen is a heart attack by one of the workers. Maybe we have discovered a method for producing wart hogs for human consumption.

      • GreenWin

        Dear Ernie,

        you are a feisty guy for 86, mazeltov and long life! Contrary to your thought I am far from an “expert” on nuke disaster death rates. What we do know is official limits for radiation exposure have been ratcheted down since WWII. I refer you to a recent lecture given by Dr. Steven Starr director Clinical Laboratory Science Program at the University of Missouri and a senior scientist at Physicians for Social Responsibility:

        Further, 2009 The New York Academy of Sciences published a book: “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”

        Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Joe Mangano at CounterPunch reports the book estimates 985,000 deaths (and rising) worldwide from Chernobyl fallout.

        Oddly, the Academy says: “This volume is out of stock and will not be reprinted by the Academy,” but you might check Amazon. I hope this is of some help.

        • Iggy Dalrymple
          • Iggy Dalrymple

            Nuclear power has prevented 1.8 million deaths
            Emissions from burning fossil fuels are toxic. The effect from a single power plant is small, but if you build a lot of fossil plants, it adds up. Air pollution kills people.

            Climatologist James E. Hansen, who just this week retired as head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Science, has just co-authored a paper that has been accepted by the journal Environmental Science & Technology, in which he calculates that nuclear power has prevented 1.84 million deaths worldwide that would have occurred if nuclear power plants had been built as fossil-fueled power plants instead. That’s actually a conservative figure, because it doesn’t count a number of things, like the effects of CO2 on climate change.

            Although this number isn’t terribly surprising to those who study energy issues, it does point up a hugely under-reported aspect of energy policy: nuclear power is the safest way ever devised to generate electricity. Safer than wind. Safer than solar. And far, far safer than fossil fuels.

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for safer and cheaper technology to replace conventional nuclear power. The problem with libs and greenies, they have Hitchcock music stuck in their heads and it’s driven them crazy.

          • GreenWin

            Iggy, I know Hansen means well, but he’s been the loudest whiner about AGW of all. Many of use here do not buy the AGW myth.

            Happily we have the rapid adoption of DERs obviating the need for old fashioned fission; and with the portals clear for LENR, there will be no need for old timey atom splitting. It’s all good.

        • eernie1

          Dear Greenwin,
          They got me in the Korean conflict. I lucked out and returned safely. However, I am somewhat of an expert in nuclear science. In the fifties I learned the techniques that were necessary to manufacture and assemble nuclear weapons from a professor who worked on the Manhattan project. All I needed was a critical mass of fissionable material. There is the rub and what Iran is trying to attain. In the same era I was in charge of a facility(60000 curies of Co60)which was used to determine radiation effects on various items including animals. I also performed the first assay of a fuel rod used in the swimming pool reactor at Michigan U. I mention this because I have heard more doom and gloom stories than most people and I am happy to say none have materialized. There have been no reports of Godzilla type biological life forms emanating from any of the disaster sites. On the contrary life seems to flourish in their vicinity. My father told me to beware of the pessimists, the paranoids and the Luddites and I will lead a happier life. Spend your time trying to make cars safer. They kill many thousands every year.That statistic is well documented. I really admire your concerns for humanity.


          • Iggy Dalrymple

            eernie, thank you for your military service and thanks for your service to science and technology.

            Does the ee in your name stand for electrical engineer?

          • eernie1

            I was trained as a physical chemist. My eernie1 was forced on me because ernie1 was already taken when I started my email address. However I did work with EEs and coauthored a paper published in the Journal of Electrical Engineering in the sixties entitled “Optical Communication System Utilizing a 3KMC Cross Field Photomultiplier.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            eernie, if you’re on facebook look me up. I’d like to talk privately with you.

          • GreenWin

            Dear Earnest,

            I am grateful and pleased to know you survived Korea, and to sincerely thank you for your service and pioneering work with the U.S. fission program. Indeed, splitting the atom has advanced life in the West, even as it endangered that same life under the mutual destruction scenario of the cold war.

            The use of hyperbole in arguing transition from fission/fossil to non-radiative LENR, is the stick where the carrot has not convinced. I can assure you I am not a pessimist,(many would argue unduly optimistic) I,like you distrust paranoids and Luddites. And as you point out, the appearance of Godzilla-mutants is safely preserved in low budget movies!

            However, it is interesting to ponder the hypothetical signal Trinity may have been to others. Like a moth to the flame would come those intrigued by the sudden appearance of so bright a light light in the heretofore dark desert.

            I imagine the last 68 years have been a trial for those charged with managing so awesome a power. To stand at arm’s length and critique such power is easy; to rise from the trenches and confront the maelstrom is yet another. Again, sincerely, thank you for all you have done to help manage the challenge.


      • Robyn Wyrick

        Hi Ernie,

        “how many lives were lost because of all reported nuclear disasters?”

        Well, there are four fairly obvious responses:

        1 – Here is a list of conservatively estimated fatalities linked directly to nuclear accidents.

        2 – How many people have died from leaked or dumped dioxin, PCBs, or other toxic chemicals?

        Radiation leaked into the atmosphere, soil, and water supply produce an environmental pollution that is persistent and can seldom be associated with any particular death with a particular event. The way we estimate deaths is by extrapolating from “known data of exposure”.

        3 – Known data from exposure is intentionally underreported.

        This is not new to Fukushima. It was so with Three Mile Island, with Chernobyl, and quite literally countless other spills, leaks, and dumping.

        I say “literally countless” because we actually have no idea how many such releases have occurred in the past 60+ years. The public is actively lied to about these events, and always have been, just as we are being lied to about Fukushima.

        Here is a list of eventually reported military accidents:

        4 – Finally, nuclear energy (as currently practiced) has produced radiation exposure for sixty years at all stages of the fuel cycle. It leaches plumes into water tables around the country in the Mining stages, with open pit mines, and solvent-based mining. It produces exposure at the refinement process. Of course it produces exposures with the active use (see Fukushima), and obviously it produces radiation leaks and exposures in the storage and “disposal” stage of the nuclear fuel cycle (such as in the case of Hanford Nuclear Reservation, upstream from Portland Oregon).

        These untold leaks in the US alone, not to mention throughout the world, have gone into water used in drinking, bathing, irrigation, etc., by an unsuspecting public. A public that has been intentionally lied to about the releases.


        So, it is simply ignorant to rhetorically suggest that nuclear energy is harmless, because someone on the internet can’t jot down a factoid about death rates.

        Whether or not the risks of nuclear energy are worth the energy produced is impossible to assess unless you look at actual risks, and the nuclear industry (and the nations that foster them) are notoriously dishonest about them.

        • GreenWin

          Impressive Robyn, thank you.

          • georgehants

            Wonderful string of comments.
            Both sides and good arguments.
            I think we can all agree that if Cold Fusion lives up to hopes then the nuclear argument will become academic and their can be no justification for continuing with it one second longer than necessary.

          • Roger Bird

            Other than the fact that “they” have minds not subject to georgehants’ mind and will change their minds at the speed that they will.

          • georgehants

            Sorry roger to deep for me, could you translate to some kind of English for me.

        • fortyniner

          Well said, Robyn.

          Fukushima represents a new order of radionuclide release into our environment, many times greater than any previous disaster including Chernobyl. There will never be a ‘final toll’ as it will continue to kill and ruin lives for many, many generations to come. As the unstoppable contamination by radioactive caesium and strontium spreads ever wider, it is literally a global catastrophe in the making. The brutally cynical nuclear industry propaganda claim so often paroted by supporters – that very few people have been killed by nuclear power – is frankly sickening.

          • georgehants

            Japan planning to build a giant ice wall around Fukushima
            The many missteps by Tepco, the company charged with fixing the ongoing disaster at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant, have come to a head once again. New reports reveal that anywhere from 300 to 600 tons of contaminated water from the nuclear power plant have been leaking into the Pacific Ocean for the past two years. And now a new proposal has been floated in hopes of stemming the tide of contaminated water, and it involves a massive ice barrier.

          • fortyniner

            It seems that TEPCO is also about to commence a game of nuclear ‘pick up sticks’ with the fuel rods in the teetering R4 elevated cooling pond.


            The difference here is that if they lose the game by causing a few rods to come together, the resulting criticality and steam/hydrogen explosion will scatter some of the contents of the pond across the site and leave the rest dry and exposed to the air, where they will quickly catch fire. The ensuing contamination would amount to many thousand times the total released by the atom bombs dropped on Japan to end WW2, and would be quickly and widely spread by air currents.

          • AlainCo

            it seems from data I have that it is simply false.
            Like on LENr there is a war about disinformation, and good information are easy to access, and not very actively defended.

            today the leak on fukushima are less than the production of 1/10000 of all (2500) coal power plant.

            it is also comparable to the quarter of the banana production of the world in banana equivalent dose.

            simply the journalist, like on cold fusion, beside being incompetent, are coward and don’t dare to tell the inconvenient truth.

            note that there are many evidence since long that low dose, even like in chernobyl and fukushima, have much fewer impact than believed (LLNT is false), and in some condition are beneficial.

            chernobyl caused only thyroid cancer to kids, because the dying soviet system let kid drink local milk from local cows eating contaminated grass. and the number od death is very low, despite the few thaousands of declared cancer.

            the suicide firemen who get toasted by radiation, died less than 20%, and over others “liquidators”, the only problems are classi cardiovascular.

            over the population the death are linked to posttraumatic syndrome amplified by fear people exploit to get subsidies and to get political control on western governments.
            the number of dead is few thousands, which is two order of magnitude higher than consequence of radiation… and many order of magnitude less than the consequence of coal power plant, and the soviet empire falling.

            among the link to read:

            don’t forget you are on a LENR group… be ready for collective delusion.
            Today the only opponents to LENr have been the physicists, not conspiracy from oil or nuke, who on the opposite made their homework and proved LENr was real.

            like on LENr the fraud is not where the conspiracy lovers imagine, but on the conspiracy fan side.
            , in the media, in the scientific community which follow fashion from politicians and NGO

            Nuke is dead, have no future, but before burying , I want the fact to be correct.
            And by the way, it is a good example of collective delusion like we fight in LENR. all evidences are public, and even wikipedia is biased today (in 2004 it was less biased).

            about japan war, the japanese wars caused 24millions dead (half of WW2), and the two bombs probably save 3 million death in japan, and few hundred thousand dead from US.

            note that after the first bomb on hiroshima, the japanese negotiators were still arguing about keep the status of god to their emperor.

            I believed for a long time that nagasaki bomb was useless, but I’m afraid it was not. Japan was living in a collective delusion.

          • GreenWin

            Interesting that Monbiot, Hansen, and most of the AG-W crowd support fission nowdays. But when it comes to non-radiative nuclear energy – they put beans in their ears.

            Why is this? Many “greens” are elitists who don’t want to improve the lives of the poor, fearing they will multiply.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          Actually, I think that the dangers of nukes have been intentionally over-reported and intentionally exaggerated.

          But nevertheless, I’ll give you guys the benefit of the doubt and move my stash of yellowcake to the far corner of my property(next to the lib/greenie clubhouse).

        • eernie1

          And despite all this the average life span in the world continues to increase.

        • eernie1

          And yet the average life span in the world has increased.

          • Robyn Wyrick

            That is true.

            Also true is that when a person dies of cancer, yet there are more people in the world.

            I presume you would argue that, if cancer was a problem, how could we keep having all these people? So clearly cancer is not a problem.

            I’m sorry, but your argument holds no merit.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            I’m sorry, but your argument holds no merit.

            And neither does your’s, except for spooky bedtime stories.

  • Roger Bird

    I am sure one of the boffins on this forum can read and understand this and then translate it into LazySemiSmartGuyese for the rest of us:

    Google Translate won’t work for some reason. It did not auto-detect Boffinese. It thought that it was English.


    • dsm

      I’ll have a go at trying to explain the concept but I am a complete amateur so this may be quite wrong.

      The below link actually explains the concept pretty well in its simplest form using a photon (there are other particle examples).

      i.e. if one photon is split through a prism into 2 photons these can be said to be ‘entangled’ – they exist with a tight relationship.

      This ‘state’ relationship is such that if one photon is measured as to its polarization, at that moment the other photon will have the reverse state. So if one photon is measured and found to have vertical polarization, the other entangled photon will be shown to have horizontal polarization.

      Experiments were conducted in May 2012 where a photon was split in this manner and one was sent via fibre optic cable 89 miles (this was between two of the Canary Islands (La Palma & Tenerife).

      This allowed researchers at one end to determine the state of the photon at the other.

      To take this transportation concept further the link just above attempts to explain the idea that if the particle at one end can be manipulated (this here is a very very simplistic description) then the result of that manipulation can actually be determined at the other end. This then has the effect of ‘teleporting’ data.

      That is the basics but the press tend to paint a more dramatic image like a Star Trek teleportation. But teleporting items (vs particles or even inanimate objects) is way off into our distant future.


      • Roger Bird

        So quantum entanglement could provide instantaneous communication. Did I get that right? But teleportation of physical objects (to say nothing of consciousness) is currently not available. And I intuitively have very great reservations that it is possible.

        Also, you keep mentioning horizontal vs. vertical polarization. But couldn’t the bearings be tilted, just 90 degrees different?


        • Dsm

          Roger, yes quantum entanglement can be ‘used’ to manipulate state such that data can be sent between entanglesd particles.

          Re the photon, polarization is one way to measure state.

          But other features of particles can be measured such as the ‘spinn’ of a quark. entangled quarks will have opposite spins. If you can determine the spin in one quark and then manipulate it to a particular state the other qurk’s spin can be determined.

          I have seen claims that atoms and molecules can have an entangled relationship.

          Must admit it is pretty heavy trying to follow it, but it has seemed to me to offer a possible explanation as to how two people in different places can seem to experience instant communication. Made me wonder if certainn people have something akin to ‘entangled’ thinking processes.


          • Roger Bird

            Since I am not a materialist, and I mean that in the nicest possible way, I have trouble understanding why we all can’t read each other minds as a matter of course. (:->)

      • GreenWin

        Nicely reviewed DSM. What all this established fairly well is the concept of “time” and “distance” ( a unit of time) are human inventions to help comprehend his environment. Telepathy and photon teleportation demonstrate both concepts to be tools rather than laws.

    • dsm

      Reply part 2 – ‘qubit’

      In quantum computing the minimal data state is a ‘qubit’ which in simple terms is the same as the old binary ‘bit’.

      This link seeks to explain this …

      The concept of qubits and quantum computing is now real and there are companies who build quantum computers. The belief is that as these computers are explored and expanded they may be able to outperform the most sophisticated existing computers for certain types of calculations. See …

      This below link is very current and kind of summarizes most of the stuff above. It actually does try to explain it all in easier to grasp terms & reads well.