Interview with Ed Storms on the Importance of Cold Fusion

I’m grateful to Ruby Carat of Cold Fusion Now for bringing my attention to this very interesting interview by John Maguire of the J.C.M. Blog with nuclear scientist Dr. Edmund Storms, formerly of the Los Alamos National Lab. It’s quite a long interview (50 minutes in total), but if you have the time, it’s well worth it to listen to the whole thing.

Dr. Storms has had a longstanding career investigating cold fusion and is still active in doing research in the field. In the interview he covers a number of topics, including discussion early palladium-deuterium experiments and more recent developments with nickel and hydrogen. He has developed is own theory about what is happening in LENR (See here for a discussion about his theory). Storms is fully convinced of the importance of cold fusion and believes that when fully developed it will be able to provide all the energy that anyone will ever need. He also discusses some of the political, cultural and ethical issues that will become important as cold fusion becomes more prominent.

I find Dr. Storms to be an intelligent, experienced and qualified person to help explain the importance of this field, and I think that this interview could stand as a good starting point for study for people who are looking for a good introduction to the topic.

  • Harold

    If we need more power than a two liter sized container erradiating dozens of kilowatts for years, we are in trouble. Cold fusion is the solution to the energy crisis, forever.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Thanks Admin, Storms is a great man. Here is another good interview, Dean Kamen of DEKA Research talking about the amount of time between invention and application and resistance to change:

  • Andre Blum

    50 minutes very, very well spent! Thanks Frank, Ruby.

    • Roger Bird

      Yes, Ed Storms is very impressive.

  • georgehants

    It would be interesting to have a list of all the “scientists” who reviewed and checked P&F’s original Work and an update as to where these people are now “working.”
    Unless such records are clearly kept, how does science know who is competent and who should be sweeping roads.
    I do not mean to demean the good work done by roadsweepers, people who are very important compared to many of the working population who are employed in pointless, circular, made-up jobs just to keep capitalism in power.
    When a true opertunity arises such as Cold Fusion to benefit all mankind then the capitalist system demands that Mr. Rossi et al hide their work for fear of loss of riches.
    The capitalist establishment hide Cold Fusion to maintain the status quo of riches and power for the few until they can harness the effect for their own benefits.
    Wonderful day.

    • Warthog

      The people who denied and denigrated Pons and Fleischmann were mostly academics or government employees (high-energy physicists), not “capitalists”. I get a bit tired of the anti-business rants on this forum. Give it a rest.

      • georgehants

        Warthog, just to help you, that was two different points on my comment, perhaps you would like to Factually reply to either of them.

        • Warthog

          No, they are not “different points”. “Cold fusion” had been “hidden” due to the machinations of academics and gov’t employees in the high-energy physics establishment. They are in no sense “capitalists”. If anything, that group probably is largely “anti-capitalist” in the same way you are.

          But I’ll ask a very simple question….what system of economics and politics has demonstrated better overall benefit to the human race than democratic (actually republican) capitalism.

          • georgehants

            Warthog, you appear in your reply to confirm they are different points, which of course they are and then again tell me they are not.
            Why worry about the present and the past when it is clearly most sensible to design a system for today that is better and fairer then anything now or before.
            The Question to begin is simply is capitalism the fairest, lest wasteful system that can encompass all of society.
            I am sure you can think of some good ideas to improve capitalism into a new “ism.”

          • Warthog

            “…is capitalism the fairest, least wasteful system that can encompass all of society.”


            Because capitalism is grounded in reality, and all the rest have been grounded in utopian fantasizing trying to come up with the next new “..ism”. That sort of thing is precisely what has gotten us from the USA of 1940,50,60 to the USA of today.

            And it is a complete waste of time.

            I come here to learn about cold fusion, not engage in futile philosophical pipe dreams.

            And I suggest to the moderator than any post that contains such discussion should be booted.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “capitalism is the worst economic system…..except for all the rest”.

          • Roger Bird

            When people attack capitalism, as some around here do regularly, they imply that there is a better system. But I have yet to see a ***workable*** suggestion coming from them. There is Mondragon, but it seems that I am the one that has to suggest it. Perhaps I am just not so busy hating capitalism and capitalists that I have time to think clearly and look for a better substitute.

      • Roger Bird

        Warthog, so also do I get tired of the anti-business rants. It is because of business that we are able to type these words in order to communicate with each other. Business invented computers. Business built the Internet up to be the powerful force that it is. Business gives my wife 2 jobs. Business supports the Social Security System that allows me the luxury to sit here and type these words. We have a system that works very well, a system that crushed Communism, a system that allows creeping socialism and free speech.

        • georgehants

          Roger, rather than just distort the point would you answer, who has suggested communism.
          Are you saying that capitalism cures all ill’s in today’s World.
          Thank you.

          • Roger Bird

            No, I am saying that you distort all economic discussions with your anti-business passion.

            If our horse is excessively spirited and uncontrollable, we don’t solve the problem by putting a bullet in its head; doing that will mean that we don’t ever get where we want to go. And if our horse is dreary and droopy, we don’t feed it coffee at every meal; doing that will make for a runaway horse, sort of like China. There is a middle ground.

            OT: I have discovered the clicking on the ABC above the upper left of this message box can reveal some amazing stuff. I had an “it’s” when it should have been an “its”. I have never seen such an intelligent spell checker. I hope that AlainCo and others will use this spell checker because it can be very handy.

          • georgehants

            Roger, it is very difficult to discuss a serious subject with somebody that makes no rational points other than to distort and complain about the points made.
            Your only saving point was to find a middle ground.
            Perhaps you would like to put forward something that you think would improve the devastating waste and inequality of capitalism.

          • Roger Bird

            Get the regulation powers and people out of the executive branch and back into the legislative branch where they belong.

            It is obvious that we have some new and different issues/problems to deal with that the Founders did not foresee. I know that that is heresy among conservatives. The principles of checks and balances and separation of powers and individual freedom and the dignity of each and every person should remain the same. But the Founders did not foresee monster businesses that could swallow whole legislatures with a single bribe. We have been harmed by that ever since the Grant administration. There has not yet been a solution to that problem. I like execution for bribers and bribees. The Chinese only execute bribees. I say execute the bribers also.

            A smaller government means fewer people to accept bribes.

            With Respect, Roger

          • georgehants

            Good stuff 🙂

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            Execute the bribers? I disagree. If you’re an international corporation, should you deprive 1/2 the world’s population of your product just because their ‘screwples’ aren’t up to your lofty standards?

            You would have to exclude most of Latin America, MiddleEast, and Asia.

            There’s a theory that the 3rd world bribery system is cheaper and more efficient than the US system where bribes are laundered by many layers of lobbyists, lawyers, politicians, and labor union officials.

            I live in a community where several lobbyists live and operate. Believe me, they comprise the “1%” here.

          • Roger Bird

            As far as the inequality, which is a real problem, I suggest a generational skipping 100% tax on inheritance. This won’t completely solve the problem, but it will help. To explain, let’s say my father had $3,000,000 when he died (in my freaking dreams). Let’s say that he had inherited $2,000,000 and had earned the other $1,000,000. When he died, his children would inherit the $1,000,000, $333,333.33 for each son. The $2,000,000 would go to the government, to be used for tax purposes just alike any other taxes.

            Why is this better than just a 100% inheritance tax? I recognize the importance of the financial industry and it’s movement of money. If my father wanted his children to inherit ANYTHING, then he had to invest wisely and work and earn money. If he sat on his duff, then his children inherit nothing. This incentivizes wise and productive investments. People sitting around living off of their trust funds insures that their children get nothing. This is a strong incentive for even rich people to not be lazy and useless.

            Yes, I do have a few ideas that do not kill the horse. I also support the Fair Tax.

          • georgehants

            Good stuff,
            now thats called debating, more at another time.

          • eernie1

            Roger, It is estimated that my generation will leave 13 trillion in assets to our children. If we can convince them to transfer these funds to our government the national debt will vanish. Good luck with that

          • Roger Bird

            eernie1, if this generation skipping inheritance confiscation was instituted now, only the grandchildren would be affected. XXX worth $10 billion would pass all of their $10 billion onto XXX+1. Any money earned by XXX+1 by any legal means could be passed on to XXX+1, but the original $10 billion would go to the government. But like you said, good luck with that.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            Roger, join me at the Apostrophe Protection Society.

          • Roger Bird

            Iggy, you continue to delight.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            Back to clicking the ABC spellchecker.

            Dennis Cravens, an accomplished PhD physicist who studied under Dirac, wrote the following on vortex, “I think they also plan on having the article on THERE web site.”

            Most scientists and engineers are very articulate, but many are sloppy with their spelling and punctuation. I’m beginning to wonder if many know the difference between they’re, there, and their.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            Of course, Dennis could have made a simple typo.

          • Roger Bird

            That’s what is so good about this spell checker. It can and will catch some homophone typos like they’re, there, and their.

        • Felix Fervens

          >” Business gives my wife 2 jobs. Business supports the Social Security System that allows me the luxury to sit here and type these words.”

          Is Social Security a private, voluntary, free market “business” benefit, or a forced government taxation program whose trust fund was long ago looted and added to the $60 trillion in unfunded promises the taxpayers face funding (or more likely face economic collapse)?

          Does the fact that your wife has to work 2 jobs even with you on the dole have anything to do with the amount of debt you have accrued to the bankers who have the privilege of creating the money they loan you, the debt slave, out of thin air via fractional reserve banking and Fed printing? Are you forced to pay insurance to yet other bankers to guarantee the collateral you owe the first bankers? Does part of the income go to monopolist utilities and subsidized corporations favored by govt.?

          If this is “business,” is it praiseworthy?

          • Roger Bird

            It is business jobs that power EVERYTHING. Government jobs can at best sort things out, and lately they haven’t been doing such a great job of that.

            We have next to no debt, so that argument won’t work with me.

          • daniel maris

            The idea that you subtract good governance from the formula for wealth creation is nonsense. Government provides all sorts of things e.g. motorways, health services, trading standards, currency, patent protection and R&D investment that are key to the wealth creation which then benefits the whole populace.

            Also vital to wealth creation are a good system of education which is often publicly funded or subsidised.

            If we have to identify the really key wealth creators though, they are the scientists and inventors. Private enterprise has to have some material to work with.

          • Roger Bird

            Absolutely. But there are business friendly laws and policies and expenditures and there are busines unfriendly laws and policies and expenditures. ObamaSoCalledCare is very business unfriendly, for example.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Felix….your statement is just not true, the “Social Security program whose trust fund was long ago looted” The SS trust fund is invested in US Treasury bonds, which are considered one of the safest investments in the world.

          • clovis


      • AlainCo

        Capitalist are not angels, and are even designed not to be angels.
        Their advantage compared to academic is that if they are wrong, they have good chance to pay it… less chance if they are big corps with governments to help them… but more chance than academics who follow the evil consensus, or governments who follow the fashion and the media errors.

        I separate big corps capitalis who are not really entrepreneurs, since they transfer their risk to the governments, thus the populations.

        the real entrepreneur take risk personally, and pay their errors. serious studies shows that they don’t even do it for money, since there is easier way to get comfort with less work…
        economic-rents, or high competence salary works.

        real entrepreuneur do it for their ego, for the pride to prove they are right, to raise two fingers up to their critics, the show their tax-bill and say they have succeeded despite the academics and the consensus…

        part of the hate agains capitalist is agains big corps, who are no more really capitalist but crony oligarchy.
        they win the benefits, and send the bill to the governments and population when it get bad…
        Privatize the benefits, nationalize the losses.
        the worst example have been the bailout of US to bank, refusing to buy their penny stocks and ruins the shareholders, fire the bosses, but just helping them continue as usual at the expense of the taxpayers, with the worst excuse of “no nationalizatoon”… what an awful excuse not to make the shareholders pay…

        for the rest capitalism helped find many solutions to make use live better, despite public planning.
        not enough since public research and funding, public criteria of what is good science, prevented LENR to be funded, and allowed trillions of wasted money into consensual research and unproductive industry.

        anyway nothing is perfect, and there can be unexpected result from stupid researches. I’m more critical on useless business depending only on subsidies.

        • kasom


          I agree!

        • Pedro

          @Alainco +1.

          @Roger: True capitalism shouldn’t have bailouts, lobbying and bought gouvernement. In the normal definition of capitalism you don’t see this, neither do you see control of the mainstream media, control of the universities through sponsoring, control of the patent system and the oversight commisions (FDA, SEC, etc). The entire system seems to be froozen, under control of a “small” elite or cartel that is continuesly securing further its grip on society.

          One of the consequences of this freak “capitalisme” is income inequality. There is a great TED talk by Richard Wilkinson about all the consequences it brings to a society. See for yourself and be warned!

          • Warthog

            The most apropos phrase for the phenomenon you describe is “crony capitalism”, which, in reality, is the government playing favorites. I believe that term was originated by the left, but it is (for a change) actually descriptive of what is going on.

          • Roger Bird

            Wow!!! I am impressed. But be warned (to use your phrase), I am extremely nimble when it comes to paradigm shifting. I am completely immune personally to the problems that this speaker illustrated. My self-esteem is not the slightest bit hurt because someone else has a better cash flow than I do. But that does not mean that how I see and react to the world should be social policy. As I suggested elsewhere, we need the Fair Tax, the generation skipping government confiscation of unearned income, the death penalty for bribery (give and take), and removal of law making from the executive branch and putting it back into the hands of the legislative branch. And, obviously, other things that I have not thought of.

            Perhaps the confiscated unearned income would go into a fund that would be invested and the income from those investments would be distributed evenly so that there would be a minimum income for everyone.

            See, all market and business friendly solutions.

            I will be emailing a link to that TED talk to all my friends, some of whom may become my enemies. (:->)

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Capitalism works and it is the best system in the world if it has effective regulations….in the past 30 years deregulation has opened the system up to cheating and outright stealing. Three years ago Congress passed new regulations on markets. Lobbyists, lawyers and crooks have delayed/distorted the implementation of those regulations: they still are not in effect, the crooks are still stealing.

    • AstralProjectee

      georgehants ~ “It would be interesting to have a list of all the “scientists” who reviewed and checked P&F’s original Work and an update as to where these people are now “working.””

      This is the place to start.

      • georgehants

        Thanks Astral, I think public trials and bring back the birch would be in order. 🙂

        • AstralProjectee

          I doubt that there could be any legal action against them though.


  • Barry

    Great, sound interview. From Rossi to CF used to power laser weapons to “Nano Cracks.” Wish Ed Storms could be on NPR radio program like “On Point.”

    • GreenWin

      Great idea. Also, PBS’ NOVA ScienceNow would be a good place to see a stepped introduction to CF and LENR.

      Or how about Scott Pelley follow up on THIS excellent 60 Minutes story:

      • georgehants

        Greenwin, A little Truth that seems to make scientific consensus look a bit daft.
        Has global warming hit a plateau?
        Why has the warming trend slowed?
        Climatologists aren’t sure. What they do know is that the average air temperatures at the earth’s surface have risen only about 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit since 1998

        • GreenWin

          This was a well-intended scheme to get humans to adopt non-fossil energy AND redistribute wealth via carbon credit trading. It has cost overseers TRILLIONS. However the science they conjured to support the enterprise had the curtain ripped away – revealing an embarrassed wizard with his finger on the scales.

          We do not need this fear campaign. We are moving to an entirely new consciousness of universal community and abundance. Energy is everywhere, abundant and accessible. If not by LENR, then another or another of many technologies to access it.

          Unlike the climate of fear campaign, the new message is there IS enough. There is plenty for everybody and the Earth will temper itself. As it always has.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          “Has global warming hit a plateau?”

          The dog ate my homework and the oceans ate my global warming.

          Global Warming is on sabbatical leave but Global Smarming continues unabated.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Here we go again Iggytopia.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            Come on over, Bernie, to where
            “the livin’ is easy
            Fish are jumpin’
            And the cotton is high”.

          • Roger Bird


          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Iggy….Don’t let the science get in your way:

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            I don’t believe the cherry-picked bullsh!t put out by your tax-sucking vampires.

            And even if it was true, the next cycle should be a new iceage, which would be infinitely worse than your GW. When the iceage hits, BigScience will be scrambling to figure out how they can enhance the greenhouse effect.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            And all the scaremongering will be exercise in futility with the advent of LENR or other revolutionary energy technology. Really cheap clean energy will make AlGore and his cronies look like Boy Scouts holding the bag at a snipe hunt.

  • frank sedei

    A great, all inclusive interview. Thank you.

  • GreenWin

    There is a certain deep rooted fear that clutches the heart of energy sectors when they hear Ed Storms discuss how efficient CF devices will become. With good engineering Ed tells us such device will be 100 percent efficient; producing energy until you shut off the flow of H2. This IS energy too cheap to meter, (promise of hot fusion.)

    Energy sectors rely on metered service so, CF is a disruptive threat. The reaction is like Tepco to Fukushima. Government, regulators, and Tepco execs, collude to quash the disastrous news. They bow to their organization at public expense. This is negligent and corrupt.

    It need not be this way IF these sectors change perspective enough to see opportunity. Someone must still design, manufacture, install and maintain CF devices. That is a revenue stream nearly as large as metered energy.

    Fortunately we have evidence the infrastructure in some nations is changing. Germany seems to be doing well with distributed renewables (feedin tariffs help.) The US is passing DER legislation making Distributed Energy Resources mandatory for utilities. The formidable challenge is to wean economies off centralized energy production and transmission. There are very good minds at work on this issue as it must be addressed before a CF publicity splash.

    • Roger Bird

      Could you show me where the alleged powers that be are actively trying to quash LENR? And making me read tea leaves does not count.

      • Jim

        So, you would like evidence.

        1) Where would we find evidence of the following?

        > Senior scientists and government funding administrators not accepting grant proposals about LENR from junior scientists
        > Junior scientists not wanting to even write grant proposals for LENR out of fear of damaging their careers
        > Editors not accepting proposals from reporters for stories on LENR
        > Energy executives and and government science administrators not offering jobs to mid-level scientists who have engaged in LENR research
        > Energy executives and and government science administrators not offering information access to editors who have promoted LENR
        > Energy executives not offering jobs to government science administrators who have said positive things about LENR.

        2) The suppression of communication and research surrounding new and disruptive knowledge has happened throughout history, particularly around knowledge that can affect great re-distributions of wealth, power and status.

        3) It is believed by some that LENR can result in such re-distributions.

        4) Where and how in the course of history did human behavior change so that the powers-that-be in this instance are not suppressing research and communication?

        Do you doubt the imputations and assumptions in 1, 2, or 3? Or do you think the change in 4 happened?

        Or is there some other network-of-causation model that entails the things that you don’t doubt, and comes to a different conclusion?

        Or do you not subscribe to network-of-causation models as being a functionally effective basis for assigning degrees of reality to our perceptions and conceptions?

        • GreenWin

          Roger, your denial here is getting tedious. DO SOME HOMEWORK. On your own. Don’t ask other people to do it for you. Don’t be lazy. Start with Dr. Gene Mallove’s “Special Report” on MIT’s falsification of P&F data.

          Read Dr. DeNinno’s “Report 41” and the refusal of 41 science “journals” to publish data evidencing He4 in ENEA’s cold fusion experiments(ordered by ENEA President & Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia.)

          And if you cannot figure the LENR part out read the 641 page Japanese Parliamentary report on corruption at the highest levels of government, Tepco and academia to suppress the catastrophic facts about Fukushima.

          Then for an overview read:
          Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed (2nd Edition) by Charles G. Beaudette with forward by Arthur C. Clarke. Charles attended the ICCF-18 conference at University Missouri.

        • Roger Bird

          All of this is easily explained because LENR has a bad rep thanks to an inability to replicate, it “violates” theory, and some people are worried about their jobs. There was not conspiracy against the Wright Bros.

          • Jim

            @Roger Bird
            Your behavior is starting to be reminiscent of your beloved skeptopaths, and your posts are looking more and more like dominance moves, as opposed to thoughtful contributions.

            Your last post raised the bar and changed the subject. At first your criteria were:

            “actively trying to quash?” and better evidence than “tea leaves”.

            Now the criteria for convincing you has something to do with the absence of something:

            “conspiracy against the Wright Bros”

            What exactly did controlled flight threaten? Railroads? Who even knew what the Wright Brothers were doing? Who was even capable of imagining the evolution of air travel, besides maybe Jules Verne and his ilk? How is the work of the Wright Brothers in any way an analogy to the situation with LENR?

            And you hand wave away all the points I made with “all this can be easily explained”, which sounds very much like a line George Hody would use, and is, by the way, immensely condescending, as if you had the clear view, while others are struggling to understand.

            Are your increasingly contrary and oppositional posts meant to add to value to the community, or make you feel good about yourself?

            Maybe it’s time for a little self-reflection…

          • GreenWin

            AlainCo has written an excellent overview of the Wright Bros parallels to Ing Rossi:


          • AlainCo

            read well all the story.
            The first version by wikipedia (I should have know it) is a usual histort written by the losers as taleb says.

            Wright brothers were not so secretive, it is just mainstream who refuse to accept evidences… they rewrite the story afterward not to look stupid, and blame their victims, like today you see them blame the LENR scientists to be loose and secretive…
            while they were simply theoretically incompetent (gammow factor to solid… so funny), experimentally incompetent (should they know calorimetry they would have admitted evidences), and globally stupid as a system.

  • Christopher Calder

    We need a new form of nuclear energy because we should know from the math that renewable energy will never save us or even perceptibly slow global warming. This article shows the historic math of renewable energy use and how it actually declined from the years 1971 to 2011. In 2011 less than 0.43% of the worlds energy came from wind and solar power. Poor African nations use the most renewable energy measured as a percentage of their energy use because they burn wood and dung for cooking and heating.

    “The Decline of Renewable Energy”

    The article linked above shows how wind and solar cannot possible stop or even perceptibly slow global warming. I disagree with the author’s last comments that possibly new research could improve wind and solar enough to be useful for large scale energy production in some distant future. No amount of research can make the wind blow all the time or the sun shine 24 hours a day. The unreliability, diffuse nature, and inherent intermittency of wind and solar make them eternally useless for large scale energy production. That said, I love my solar powered calculator. That is a correct use of solar energy. USE THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE RIGHT JOB!

    • GreenWin

      Interesting jockeying amongst different interest groups. The IEA differs greatly with statements of renewable decline. IEA’s five year prediction is for 40% growth in renewables:

      “In absolute terms, global renewable generation in 2012 – at 4,860 TWh – exceeded the total estimated electricity consumption of China.”

      If you buy the climate claims this looks very impressive. But as you point out, it is probably wrapped in a good bit of spin (as is AG-W.) LENR will be a far more effective combatant against climate change since it has a tiny footprint compared to windmills and PV pavement.

      The question is when will Sierra and NRDC grok that LENR is a godsend for their various causes?? If they are clever enough they could lobby for a piece of the action – as they have with carbon credits. But ARE they clever enough to stop climate, protect environment, get paid, and empower billions across the planet? We think not.,39156,en.html

    • Roger Bird

      Chris, I am sorry but I can’t stand it when someone is being dishonest, so I did not finish the article. What was disingenuous (another word of dishonest) is including wood burning and bullock power etc in with the other renewables. The comparison should between fossil fuels and solar/wind/geothermal, all of the new reNEWables, not the old reNEWables (or old reOLDables). The article did point out, perhaps inadvertently, that the reOLDables were as bad as fossil fuels with regard to pollution, only much less productive.

  • John Maguire

    Appreciate all the positive comments on the video. Also thanks to Frank (Admin?), Ruby for cross posting, and much thanks to Ed for taking the time to sit down with an amateur like myself. Hope this minor effort can serve to further educate and raise awareness of many interconnected issues (energy, geopolitical, etc.).

    • Sanjeev

      Hi John,

      Keep up the great work.
      Hope to hear more such interviews by yourself, especially from hard to reach lenr researchers such as Kim or the one from Finland.

      • John Maguire

        Thanks Sanjeev. I will look into that for sure. Take care.

  • AstralProjectee

    Whether your Democrat or Republican or an independent, the one thing we all agree on is that corporate/corruption and government don’t mix. So please hear the best solution I have found.

    This is for Roger Bird, georgehants, and anyone else here that is interested in solving our government problems here. Which is mainly all the corruption at the federal level.

    This is a bipartisan solution. Which is to get money out of politics. Here is the place to do it.

    If you care where our country is going and want to see a real solution from he ground up. Then please check out the video, sign their petition, and get involved. If not then at least see what they have to say.

    Sorry this is off topic, but I rarely post here something that is off topic.


    • Barry

      Sounds good Astral.

    • georgehants

      Thanks Astral, good to see interest in putting right what has caused part of the 24 year delay in Cold Fusion, the capitalist system incompetence of putting the wrong people in positions of authority.
      In a correct system only those with a proven record of open-minded intelligence and concern for humanity would ever have the opertunity to rise to a higher scientific position.
      Like Roger Bird if they can overcome their establishment induced horror of not following the Dogma preached to them, then they are full of serious concerns at the failures of capitalism and quite capable of suggesting solutions.

  • Adrian

    Can someone please give a good comprehensive run down of what was covered in this interview. I have really bad tinnitus and I can’t watch this whole interview. I where ear plugs constantly. Thanks.


  • “Jack” Stokes

    I come to this site to keep up with cold fusion. I am NOT interested in the posters ideas on politics, AGW, fission or economics. Although I did get a chuckle on finding out that wikipedia is a trusted source. There IS a moderator??

    • AstralPorjectee

      Well this is true to an extent. But when talking about such a powerful technology it’s only natural to have to eventually bring us politics, AGW and all the rest. And if you don’t think so. Just wait and see once cold fusion hits the market. Suddenly it will be an issue.