Economic Times Predicts Fusion (Hot or Cold) Breakthrough

An editorial titled “Fusion reactor: The countdown has begun” by Hari Pukkat on the Economic Times web site — an Indian publication — reviews the recent news about nuclear fusion, focusing on the recent Lockheed Martin announcement, but also mentions that cold fusion research is ongoing in a small community of researchers.

The main message is that fusion research is ongoing and there is likely to be a major breakthrough in the field that will change the energy landscape, but predicting just what that breakthrough will be, or when it will happen is not possible at this point.

Pukkat writes:

“Although it is difficult to plan our energy future based on these claims, a commercial fusion reactor – whether hot or cold – no longer looks like a pipedream. There would be one within the lifetimes of many readers, and probably within the lifetimes of most people in the world. The real question is this: will they be good enough to change the world? . . .

“Fusion technology could make a significant impact one day, but not likely through the combined effect of many incremental advances. We would see one big breakthrough at some point that would overturn the energy landscape and bring forth a new era. It would like the transistor spawning the computer age. We don’t know when this advance will take place. It could be a few years or a few decades away, and most likely before the middle of this century.”

It’s all rather vague, for sure; it seems to be a prediction based on the laws of probability with few specifics. But it’s another sign of more interest in the fusion field and a little more respect being shown to cold fusion.

  • georgehants

    It must be fair to say that if we did not have a scientific community that was not proven to be unbelievably incompetent and corrupt then we would have been at this point 25 years ago.
    It surly is time to remove the deadwood and wasters in science and bring science to the position of the great pioneers of the early 20th century who searched and open-mindedly found the Quantum reality that is still unknown by the majority of average scientists. brain-washed by an education system that can only be described as laughable.
    A degree in how to light a bunson burner is about as far most of modern science can reach,
    If I wish to discuss with an average scientist anything beyond the petty Dogma and dead-brained teaching of their establishment holy dictates I find almost nothing but non-thinking automatons.
    Perhaps a scientist on page would like to prove me wrong and give a scientific opinion on the Evidence regarding UFO’s. NDE, Telepathy etc.
    Science consists mostly in my experience with a group of uneducated, unthinking, half-wits unable to ever move beyond their establishment enforced education.
    They are ready to blame anybody regarding the horrific delays with Cold Fusion beyond themselves.
    Time for a few public extractions in science to help the incompetent rabble wake-up, I think.

    • LCD

      But the scientific community has also given us lots of good things. Once lenr becomes a stark reality to everybody, heck even magnetic confinement fusion if it happens, there will be some reckoning and the scientific community “should” adjust.

      In this case a few bad apples I think ruined it for everybody else.

      • georgehants

        LCD,why is it that the average scientist seems completely unable to respond in a scientific way.
        According to your argument because there are good helpful bacteria then it is not acceptable to try and find a deference against disease causing bacteria.
        One cannot put the good to offset the bad, the “few bad apples” that have destroyed Cold Fusion etc. research for 25 years, do you not think, should be publicly condemned and removed by the rest of the supposedly competent community.
        Those “few” bad apples appear to me to be more like 95% of practicing science or it would have very little effect on the good outcome.

        • GreenWin

          Most of mainstream scientists are not the “bad” apples as much as they are timid apples. Or sheeples may be more accurate. Since these are government/academic scientists enslaved by the research grant monopoly. The attempt to save face is the only reason for Lockheed’s “breakthrough.”

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, that being the case, then it would seem we are agreed that say 95% of scientists are spine-less immoral wimps willing to allow millions to suffer because they do not have the balls to standup for themselves.
            I can think of another occasion in the 1930’s where that happened and millions suffered in consequence.
            Who amongst science is going to start the ball rolling to put right this criminal apathy?

          • GreenWin

            Well, I might not use your graphic imagery George, but I will say, the preponderance of mainstream scientists do not comprehend “humanitarianism.” Or behave with the independence typical of human nature. They act like robots IMO.

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, I agree and in defense just say that somedays the knowledge and graphic awareness of the suffering of those children and adults without the basic necessities that we all so freely take for granted, gets up my nose.
            Thousands of comments on page, mostly harmlessly regurgitating the same merry go round, but nearly all hiding the responsibility that every scientist bears for that suffering.

          • ecatworld

            George, I don’t think we can blame every scientist for the failure of cold fusion to show up in the world and solve many of our problems.

            Scientists are usually specialists who work in a wide variety of fields, most unconnected with cold fusion — and many have done, and continue to do important work to alleviate suffering and solve in one way or another. I think everyone who reads this site have had our lives benefited by the work of scientists.

            I hope that more scientists will recognize the potential that cold fusion has and get involved in moving it forward.

          • georgehants

            Admin, I think I made it clear in my first comment that I am not attacking any competent, able, morally responsible scientists.
            I am attacking only those parts of science that have allowed the current situation with Cold Fusion and many other important areas of science to linger in the dark ages, because of clear corruption, incompetence etc.
            I will ask you if you feel a responsibility on page to highlight the horrific people and ares that have led Cold Fusion to be in this inexcusable position.
            Closing one’s eyes and hoping it will go away is not helping the many other scientific subject that are debunked and delayed, such as Research into LSD etc. that was done by Stanislav Grof et al in the 1950’s and who has been bravely fighting debunking and denial ever since, to have his important work recognised.
            Now new Research is showing his efforts to be correct and useful in the treatment of schizophrenia and all mental problems.
            Until science changes its ways and becomes responsible in condemning it’s own faults it must be clear to anyone that little progress can be made to improve.
            You say —
            “I hope that more scientists will recognize the potential that cold fusion has and get involved in moving it forward.”
            ——
            Do you not think that these pages have just that responsibility, to take a lead in helping to highlight and put right the very things you point out.

          • ecatworld

            Yes, I hope that many scientists come to the site and start to take LENR more seriously.

          • LCD

            You think 95% are bad.

          • georgehants

            LCD, as you know you are not actually saying anything just attempting to make a mess of the points made.
            Let me ask you what complete point or points I have made on this page that you agree or disagree with.
            Can you manage that do you think?

          • LCD

            I’ve debated this with you before. It is not something that interests me at this moment. You can talk about science and scientists being bad all you want but as a scientist and researcher I don’t feel that way.

            I feel like a select few have poisoned the well and one day there will be a day of reckoning but until that day occurs in the full glory of the national public we are just wasting our time continuing to talk about it.

            I’ve dealt with it first hand and so have others but at the end of the day I don’t have proof and they don’t care what I say they won’t change their mind.

            I look forward to the day I can rub that proof in their faces and show them how ignorant and conceded they have been, and in turn how much suffering they could have prevented but until that day comes the best i can do is put forward an effort to make that day come faster.

            Talking about it before then is not optimal. Additionally I don’t feel you have an accurate grasp of the problem because you somehow seem to think scientists know everything about everything. Unfortunately they don’t. We specialize in different areas and often have to trust other experts in other areas. So it’s not surprising to me that a few bad apples can ruin it for everybody. Those bad apples specifically are some in the hot fusion area.

          • georgehants

            Thank you, let me answer your points. you say —
            —-“It is not something that interests me”
            -then why are you answering my comments?
            —- “You can talk about science and scientists being bad all you want but as a scientist and researcher I don’t feel that way.”
            -What you feel is obviously completely irrelevant, only Facts matter, it is a proven Fact that the corruption and incompetence destroyed Research with P&F and still does today because of the Fact that many scientists are corrupt and incompetent.
            —-“I’ve dealt with it first hand and so have others but at the end of the
            day I don’t have proof and they don’t care what I say they won’t change
            their mind.”
            -So you agree that the problem (but apparently are unaware of the proven corruption etc that destroyed P&F.) I state is correct but then give-up, I prefer to continue the fight for better science.
            —-“I look forward to the day I can rub that proof in their faces and show
            them how ignorant and conceded they have been, and in turn how much
            suffering they could have prevented but until that day comes the best i
            can do is put forward an effort to make that day come faster.”
            -Again you completely agree with my points and then give-up.
            —-“Talking about it before then is not optimal. Additionally I don’t feel
            you have an accurate grasp of the problem because you somehow seem to
            -If you would like to put up a link where I have ever said or implied that “scientists know everything about everything” I would be amazed as it is just something you have made-up to try and justify your position.
            —-“So it’s not surprising to me that can ruin it for
            everybody. Those bad apples specifically are some in the hot fusion
            area.”
            -That is clearly ridiculous that “a few bad apples” can destroy Cold Fusion on their own, if the rest of the scientific community are not priest following half-wits. as that is what you must be, just like me implying.
            —–
            So you appear to be almost in complete agreement with me but have some kind of “block” that stops you saying so.

          • LCD

            George I think you are a good person but beyond my ability and desire to reach you.

            I think everybody on this board has been trying to tell you the same thing but you don’t listen.

            There is a saying, if you meet a close minded person one day, you met a close minded person. If you meet one the second day, you found two. If you meet one the third day, you’re the close minded person.

            (I’m paraphrasing)

          • georgehants

            LCD, you actually expect me to listen to people who are not willing to stand up and change a situation where millions are dying and suffering through the corrupt, incompetent inaction of science,
            It does not matter to me how many are against doing the right thing.
            You are saying to change science from its closed minded incompetence is being closed-minded. ha.
            You choose your important goals in life and I will choose mine.

          • Mike

            Not that high but they are corrupt to the core.

          • Mike

            I am not sure about that. Evolutionists are doing the same thing to any competing theories, historians, same story. Politics, man made global warming put forth as fact to collect money from us. Astronomy, same shit, ort cloud anyone. Man I can go on and on. Do the moderate muslims bare any responsibility for the nut case radicals? I say yes, they are the only ones who could stop it. Same with scientists, they all need to stop going along to get along. And put their money where their mouth isn’t.

          • BuildItNow

            More like “The Crime of The Century”. A crime against the planet, far worse than a crime against humanity for deliberately delaying cold fusion.

          • bitplayer

            I would be interested in your views on the following:

            What general percentage of human behavior is governed by a morally judgeable conscious volition versus unconscious and sub-conscious conditioning? (The scope of this assessment can be limited to the top 10% of the population in terms of education and intelligence.)

            If you conclude that it is a moral failing to not expand one’s volitional consciousness so that one can function at a higher moral level (moral in terms of consequences on human suffering), then what are some starting points and available tools for expanding that consciousness?

            Which of these would you recommend based on your personal success with them?

          • georgehants

            bitplayer, if we remove all your highfaluting chat I can say simply —
            It is up to each one of us to do everything we can to help move this World to a position where all basic necessities are given to all and progress to better things is equally available to all, beyond any favour.

          • bitplayer

            So, would you suggest that scientists reduce the expressions of their analytic thinking to something that is not “highfaluting chat”? And that perhaps we could sustain civilization with analytic thinking that is less precise?

          • georgehants

            bitplayer, are you only capable of trying to distort the points being made.
            Would you like to state clearly your position regarding my position in my above answer like an able scientist would?

          • bitplayer

            Is your position that we a have “a scientific community that was proven to be unbelievably incompetent and corrupt”?

            Compared to what? Politicians? Career Criminals? Mother Theresa?

            I suppose your position is theoretically measurable, but not practically so.

            And more to the point, what are the likely consequences of your position, except to cause the community of scientists to become more defensive?

            What it is you are trying to achieve with your statements? What actions do you want people to take? To simply agree with you?

            You may be thinking: “See, bitplayer won’t take a position on my position!” And so I’m at some sort of moral fault.

            My position is that your position is a set of statements that provide you with some emotional release with your frustration, which is driven by your moral sensibilities. And those I agree with. But with respect to your expressions of those sensibilities, not so much.

          • georgehants

            bitplayer, you would do well on ECN.
            Do you think science should be Honest?

          • bitplayer

            “ECN”? Now you’re just being insulting. I’m disappointed.

            I think that to cause real change to reduce real human suffering you have to do more than yell “the system sucks”.

            You have to analyze the system, find an effective action point, stick the crowbar in there, and pull hard.

            I await your indication of an action point.

          • georgehants

            bitplayer, are you just unwilling or psychologically unable to answer a simple question?

          • bitplayer

            Your question is not simple, it is simplistic, because it contains assumptions about meaning which can be interpreted in many ways. If you don’t understand that, there’s no point in further exchanging words.

            It seems that you are demanding agreement with your position, defending it with naive rhetorical devices, such as insisting that I answer your simplistic questions, and then insulting me when I respond the way I choose.

            If you read the thread above, I agreed with your moral sensibilities, and disagreed with your position.

            Since you’ve now insulted me twice, you have demonstrated you are not a fit partner for what I consider to be civilized dialog, and I respectfully withdraw from this conversation.

          • georgehants

            bitplayer, are you just unwilling or psychologically unable to answer a simple question?

          • LCD

            Well said bit

          • GreenWin

            Here’re three “starting points:” Consider the 1.6 BILLION human beings without electricity. 780M people lack access to safe/clean water. 3.4M people die each year from water-related disease.

          • Omega Z

            George
            You state that Scientists don’t have the balls to stand up & say,

            YOU’VE GOT THIS ALL WRONG.

            Actually, Some of them did have the balls to do that.
            In the U.S., We call these Brave Souls, Wal-Mart Greeters.

          • georgehants

            Omega Z, of course agreed and what Wonderful human beings those people and scientists are.
            I am of course only referring to those scientists that even today do not have the simple abilities to Research the Evidence for Cold Fusion or UFO’s etc. without opening their incompetent mouths and parroting the official priestly line of totally unscientific Dogma.
            One can see even on these pages the horror shown from many quarters to me plainly speaking the Truth regarding these and many other equally important subjects.
            There is a general attitude of don’t rock the boat, o’dear we must not condemn science and their corrupt incompetent priests, etc. etc.
            Millions died in the second World war crimes because of gutless spineless Germans following the”party line” and keeping out of trouble.
            Are we today no better?

          • yes, no evil, just organization.

    • Frechette

      “…lesser “applied” scientists or “applied” mathematicians that one cannot fairly expect much from.”
      It is these lesser creatures (engineers and applied mathematicians) that make things happen where the tire hits the road so to speak. For instance most so called scientists couldn’t design a practical electronic circuit if their life depended on it. I’ve worked with some of them for better than 30 years.

      • georgehants

        Frechette, scientifically only practicing scientists Research new ground.
        If a humble “applied” scientist does so then he becomes a scientist.
        Is that not obvious?

        • Frechette

          The scientist Newton gave us F=ma. Von Braun an applied scientist (engineer) got us to the moon 3 centuries later.

          • georgehants

            Frechette, if Von Braun personally did research or theoretical work on the unknown then he was clearly a scientist.
            I am amazed how many scientists do not seem to have a clue as to what a scientist is.

          • bachcole

            I am a scientists. It is unknown what level of inflammation eating a banana will cause in my body, although in theory it should cause substantial inflammation because it has high carbs. But it is natural, so I am not sure. So I try two just so I won’t have any trouble seeing the result. Then when I lay on my therapuetic massage bed or jump on my mini-trampoline, I can determine if my inflammation has increased or decreased or stayed the same. My quantification is sort of lame, but it doesn’t matter, as long as I can tell if it got worse, better, or stayed the same. See, even common folks can be scientists.

          • georgehants

            Roger, yes you understand, a qualification means nothing in respect of any scientific or other achievements.
            Many perfectly ordinary people have done great work, the arrogant professionals like to try and put them down as amateurs.

          • Frechette

            He did research on rocket motors which at the time was unknown. He also did research on rocket fuel which was a big unknown. He was one of the few that were ahead of the times in this regard along with far sighted individuals in the US and Russia,

  • georgehants

    It must be fair to say that if we did not have a scientific community that was proven to be unbelievably incompetent and corrupt then we would have been at this point 25 years ago.
    It surly is time to remove the deadwood and wasters in science and bring science to the position of the great pioneers of the early 20th century who searched and open-mindedly found the Quantum reality that is still unknown by the majority of average scientists. brain-washed by an education system that can only be described as laughable.
    A degree in how to light a bunson burner is about as far as most of modern science can reach,
    If I wish to discuss with an average scientist anything beyond the petty Dogma and dead-brained teaching of their establishment holy dictates I find almost nothing but non-thinking automatons.
    It does not seem to register with these “people” that millions could be suffering and dying as a direct result of the closed-minded incompetence of these so called scientists and scientific administrators.
    Perhaps a few more scientists on page would like to change things and show there are a few able thinkers amongst them and give a sensible scientific opinion on the handling of the Evidence regarding UFO’s. NDE, Telepathy etc.
    I do not wish to discuss these subjects on page but the response to the Evidence gives a good indication of the thinking abilities of people.
    Science consists mostly in my experience with a group of uneducated, unthinking, half-wits unable to ever move beyond their establishment enforced selective education.
    They are ready to blame anybody regarding the horrific delays with Cold Fusion beyond themselves.
    It will be noted that I am discussing science and scientists not the large mass of humble and lesser “applied” scientists or “applied” mathematicians that one cannot fairly expect much from.
    Time for a few public executions in science to help the incompetent rabble wake-up, I think.
    For those with small petty minds who are unable to think and respond to the points being made and just attack the writer, I will point out I am not attacking the good competent open-minded scientists that are honest and able.

    • LCD

      But the scientific community has also given us lots of good things. Once lenr becomes a stark reality to everybody, heck even magnetic confinement fusion if it happens, there will be some reckoning and the scientific community “should” adjust.

      In this case a few bad apples I think ruined it for everybody else.

      • georgehants

        LCD,why is it that the average scientist seems completely unable to respond in a scientific way.
        According to your argument because there are good helpful bacteria then it is not acceptable to try and find a defense against disease causing bacteria.
        One cannot put the good to offset the bad, the “few bad apples” that have destroyed Cold Fusion etc. research for 25 years, do you not think, should be publicly condemned and removed by the rest of the supposedly competent community.
        Those “few” bad apples appear to me to be more like 95% of practicing science or it would have very little effect on the good outcome.
        Cold Fusion has been virtually destroyed for 25 years, could a “few bad apples” archive that against a generally competent scientific community?

        • GreenWin

          Most of mainstream scientists are not the “bad” apples as much as they are timid apples. Or sheeples may be more accurate. Since these are government/academic scientists enslaved by the research grant monopoly. The attempt to save face is the only reason for Lockheed’s “breakthrough.”

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, that being the case, then it would seem we are agreed that say 95% of scientists are spine-less immoral wimps willing to allow millions to suffer because they do not have the balls to standup for themselves.
            I can think of another occasion in the 1930’s where that happened and millions suffered in consequence.
            Who amongst science is going to start the ball rolling to put right this criminal apathy?

          • GreenWin

            Well, I might not use your graphic imagery George, but I will say, the preponderance of mainstream scientists do not comprehend “humanitarianism.” Or behave with the independence typical of human nature. They act like robots IMO.

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, I agree and in defense just say that somedays the knowledge and graphic awareness of the suffering of those children and adults without the basic necessities that we all so freely take for granted, gets up my nose.
            Thousands of comments on page, mostly harmlessly regurgitating the same merry go round, but nearly all hiding the responsibility that every scientist bears for that suffering.

          • Frank Acland

            George, I don’t think we can blame every scientist for the failure of cold fusion to show up in the world and solve many of our problems.

            Scientists are usually specialists who work in a wide variety of fields, most not closely connected with cold fusion — and many have done, and continue to do important work to alleviate suffering and solve in one way or another. I think everyone who reads this site have had our lives benefited by the work of scientists.

            I hope that more scientists will recognize the potential that cold fusion has and get involved in moving it forward.

          • georgehants

            Admin, I think I made it clear in my first comment that I am not attacking any competent, able, morally responsible scientists.
            I am attacking only those parts of science that have allowed the current situation with Cold Fusion and many other important areas of science to linger in the dark ages, because of clear corruption, incompetence etc.
            I will ask you if you feel a responsibility on page to highlight the horrific people and ares that have led Cold Fusion to be in this inexcusable position.
            Closing one’s eyes and hoping it will go away is not helping the many other scientific subject that are debunked and delayed, such as Research into LSD etc. that was done by Stanislav Grof et al in the 1950’s and who has been bravely fighting debunking and denial ever since, to have his important work recognised.
            Now new Research is showing his efforts to be correct and useful in the treatment of schizophrenia and all mental problems.
            Until science changes its ways and becomes responsible in condemning it’s own faults it must be clear to anyone that little progress can be made to improve.
            You say —
            “I hope that more scientists will recognize the potential that cold fusion has and get involved in moving it forward.”
            ——
            Do you not think that these pages have just that responsibility, to take a lead in helping to highlight and put right the very things you point out.

          • Frank Acland

            Yes, I hope that many scientists come to the site and start to take LENR more seriously.

          • LCD

            You think 95% are bad.

          • georgehants

            LCD, as you know I have answered that in my response to you above, so you are not actually saying anything just attempting to make a mess of the points made.
            Let me ask you what complete point or points I have made on this page that you agree or disagree with.
            Can you manage that do you think?

          • LCD

            I’ve debated this with you before. It is not something that interests me at this moment. You can talk about science and scientists being bad all you want but as a scientist and researcher I don’t feel that way.

            I feel like a select few have poisoned the well and one day there will be a day of reckoning but until that day occurs in the full glory of the national public we are just wasting our time continuing to talk about it.

            I’ve dealt with it first hand and so have others but at the end of the day I don’t have proof and they don’t care what I say they won’t change their mind.

            I look forward to the day I can rub that proof in their faces and show them how ignorant and conceded they have been, and in turn how much suffering they could have prevented but until that day comes the best i can do is put forward an effort to make that day come faster.

            Talking about it before then is not optimal. Additionally I don’t feel you have an accurate grasp of the problem because you somehow seem to think scientists know everything about everything. Unfortunately they don’t. We specialize in different areas and often have to trust other experts in other areas. So it’s not surprising to me that a few bad apples can ruin it for everybody. Those bad apples specifically are some in the hot fusion area.

          • georgehants

            Thank you, let me answer your points. you say —
            —-“It is not something that interests me”
            -then why are you answering my comments?
            —- “You can talk about science and scientists being bad all you want but as a scientist and researcher I don’t feel that way.”
            -What you feel is obviously completely irrelevant, only Facts matter, it is a proven Fact that the corruption and incompetence destroyed Research with P&F and still does today because of the Fact that many scientists are corrupt and incompetent.
            —-“I’ve dealt with it first hand and so have others but at the end of the
            day I don’t have proof and they don’t care what I say they won’t change
            their mind.”
            -So you agree that the problem (but apparently are unaware of the proven corruption etc that destroyed P&F.) I state is correct but then give-up, I prefer to continue the fight for better science.
            —-“I look forward to the day I can rub that proof in their faces and show
            them how ignorant and conceded they have been, and in turn how much
            suffering they could have prevented but until that day comes the best i
            can do is put forward an effort to make that day come faster.”
            -Again you completely agree with my points and then give-up.
            —-” . Additionally I don’t feel you have an accurate grasp of the problem because you somehow seem to think scientists know everything about everything.”
            – Your opinion that “Talking about it before then is not optimal” can be easily seen as a possible false unprovable statement.
            If you would like to put up a link where I have ever said or implied that “scientists know everything about everything” I would be amazed as it is just something you have made-up to try and justify your position.
            —-“So it’s not surprising to me that can ruin it for
            everybody. Those bad apples specifically are some in the hot fusion
            area.”
            -That is clearly ridiculous that “a few bad apples” can destroy Cold Fusion on their own, if the rest of the scientific community are not priest following half-wits. and that is what you , just like me are implying.
            —–
            So you appear to be almost in complete agreement with me but have some kind of “block” that stops you saying so.

          • LCD

            George I think you are a good person but beyond my ability and desire to reach you.

            I think everybody on this board has been trying to tell you the same thing but you don’t listen.

            There is a saying, if you meet a close minded person one day, you met a close minded person. If you meet one the second day, you found two. If you meet one the third day, you’re the close minded person.

            (I’m paraphrasing)

          • georgehants

            LCD, you actually expect me to listen to people who are not willing to stand up and change a situation where millions are dying and suffering through the corrupt, incompetent inaction of science,
            It does not matter to me how many are against doing the “right thing” I have no wish to join the foolish masses in being excepted by those in authority as in Germany 1930’s or those who followed the excepted view that Black people are not as good as Whites.
            Are you aware you are saying to try and change science from its closed minded incompetence is being closed-minded. ha.
            You choose your important goals in life and I will choose mine.

          • Mike

            LCD, this is not a matter of being closed minded. It is an indictment with which I agree. And when it comes to the establishment, I am not closed minded, I think they are full of shit because they have lied time and time again. And I don’t think anyone can trust what they say anymore. And the so called good ones stood by as they do now. Regular people can be closed minded and that is ok. But a closed minded scientist is a catastrophe for a world trying to advance.

          • Mike

            Not that high but they are corrupt to the core.

          • Mike

            I am not sure about that. Evolutionists are doing the same thing to any competing theories, historians, same story. Politics, man made global warming put forth as fact to collect money from us. Astronomy, same shit, ort cloud anyone. Man I can go on and on. Do the moderate muslims bare any responsibility for the nut case radicals? I say yes, they are the only ones who could stop it. Same with scientists, they all need to stop going along to get along. And put their money where their mouth isn’t.

          • Omega Z

            George
            You state that Scientists don’t have the balls to stand up & say,

            YOU’VE GOT THIS ALL WRONG.

            Actually, Some of them did have the balls to do that.
            In the U.S., We call these Brave Souls, Wal-Mart Greeters.

          • georgehants

            Omega Z, of course agreed and what Wonderful human beings those people and scientists are.
            I am of course only referring to those scientists that even today do not have the simple abilities to Research the Evidence for Cold Fusion or UFO’s etc. without opening their incompetent mouths and parroting the official priestly line of totally unscientific Dogma and denial.
            One can see even on these pages the horror shown from many quarters to me plainly speaking the Truth regarding these and many other equally important subjects.
            There is a general attitude of don’t rock the boat, o’dear we must not condemn science and their corrupt incompetent priests, etc. etc.
            Millions died in the second World war crimes because of the majority of gutless spineless Germans following the”party line” and keeping out of trouble, the few brave caring Germans where swamped by the mass of uncaring rabble.
            Are we today no better?

          • yes, no evil, just organization.

    • Frechette

      “…lesser “applied” scientists or “applied” mathematicians that one cannot fairly expect much from.”
      It is these lesser creatures (engineers and applied mathematicians) that make things happen where the tire hits the road so to speak. For instance most so called scientists couldn’t design a practical electronic circuit if their life depended on it. I’ve worked with some of them for better than 30 years.

      • georgehants

        Frechette, scientifically only practicing scientists Research new ground.
        If a humble “applied” scientist does so then he becomes a scientist.
        Is that not obvious?

        • Frechette

          The scientist Newton gave us F=ma. Von Braun an applied scientist (engineer) got us to the moon 3 centuries later.

          • georgehants

            Frechette, if Von Braun personally did research or theoretical work on the unknown then he was clearly a scientist.
            I am amazed how many scientists do not seem to have a clue as to what a scientist is.

          • bachcole

            I am a scientists. It is unknown what level of inflammation eating a banana will cause in my body, although in theory it should cause substantial inflammation because it has high carbs. But it is natural, so I am not sure. So I try two just so I won’t have any trouble seeing the result. Then when I lay on my therapuetic massage bed or jump on my mini-trampoline, I can determine if my inflammation has increased or decreased or stayed the same. My quantification is sort of lame, but it doesn’t matter, as long as I can tell if it got worse, better, or stayed the same. See, even common folks can be scientists.

          • georgehants

            Roger, yes you understand, a qualification means nothing in respect of any scientific or other achievements.
            Many perfectly ordinary people have done great work, the arrogant professionals like to try and put them down as amateurs.

          • bachcole

            Science is not rocket science. Rocket science and a lot of other sciences can be heavy duty mathematics. But science per se is no big deal.

          • Frechette

            He did research on rocket motors which at the time was unknown. He also did research on rocket fuel which was a big unknown. He was one of the few that were ahead of the times in this regard along with far sighted individuals in the US and Russia,

    • bkrharold

      To be fair, many scientists will have been discouraged from exploring LENR from the public humiliation and discrediting of Pons and Fleischman. After all they still need to make a living. A colleague of mine had a son who tried unsuccessfully for years to make headway in the field. The stigma, and resulting lack of funding have discouraged all but the very bravest and best.

      • georgehants

        bkrharold, of course all understood, but do you not agree that the cure must start somewhere or at least be attempted.
        I have I think a far more optimistic view of humanity, if only they would be allowed to choose their own paths without the coercion and force to comply with those in power, meaning of course the rich.
        I think the average person is basically caring and fair but as you say history has shown they are very easy to lead astray.
        Only a powerful god will lead the way, I think, I like the god of Truth, it almost invariably leads to the best for the most.

        • bkrharold

          Yes I agree most people are decent and compassionate. I also believe there is a creative force, an infinite consciousness that is the ultimate source. However we have all been given the gift or maybe the curse of free will. Nobody will rescue us from ourselves. Our collective fate is in our own hands.
          Yet there is hope. An abundant source of cheap energy like LENR would change the world for the better, and end the era of fossil fuel at last. It might ultimately tip the balance of power in favor of the people instead of the oligarchs.

      • GreenWin

        It is odd but the “public humiliation” to come will be of those who clearly impeded the work. These will be the leaders of fossil/fission industry, and academics lurking about the halls of MIT and CalTech. And of course Bob Park’s American Physical Society.

    • bkrharold

      I share your frustration over the 25 years wasted, and the almost criminal damage being done to our ecosphere by the fossil fuel industry. The problem is not with a few bad apples, it is a systemic problem rooted in our system of government and driven by our own base nature. It is a greedy power hungry minority that have siezed control of our government and corrupted it for their own purposes. This is a drama that has played out many times in history and it never ends well.

      • BuildItNow

        More like “The Crime of The Century”. A crime against the planet, far worse than a crime against humanity for deliberately delaying cold fusion.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Or to read Rossi’s blog.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Or to read Rossi’s blog.

  • GreenWin

    The hope of PTB is to hype up a Lockheed “compact fusion” gadget that will divert attention from the real deal created by Industrial Heat and other LENR researchers. We’ve even seen a planted story that refers to the Lockheed gimmick as “Cold Fusion.” The reason this will fail is Lockheed will do little better than other hot fusionists; PPPL, General Atomics, MIT, DOE, NIF, ITER, etc, etc.- all pie in the sky white collar welfare programs — according to former Director of the Atomic Energy Commission, Princeton plasma physics guru Dr. Robert Bussard.

    And should they build something that actually fuses atoms, it will also produce dangerous neutrons which will irradiate the device walls producing more toxic waste. But at least mainstream is slowly accepting the idea that fusion IS the future. Next step is to accept that it will be LENR-based fusion. This is a very hard journey for all of mainstream science.

  • GreenWin

    The hope of PTB is to hype up a Lockheed “compact fusion” gadget that will divert attention from the real deal created by Industrial Heat and other LENR researchers. We’ve even seen a planted story that refers to the Lockheed gimmick as “Cold Fusion.” The reason this will fail is Lockheed will do little better than other hot fusionists; PPPL, General Atomics, MIT, DOE, NIF, ITER, etc, etc.- all pie in the sky white collar welfare programs — according to former Director of the Atomic Energy Commission, Princeton plasma physics guru Dr. Robert Bussard.

    And should they build something that actually fuses atoms, it will also produce dangerous neutrons which will irradiate the device walls producing more toxic waste. But at least mainstream is slowly accepting the idea that fusion IS the future. Next step is to accept that it will be LENR-based fusion. This is a very hard journey for all of mainstream science.

    • Ivy Matt

      “We’ve even seen a planted story that refers to the Lockheed gimmick as ‘Cold Fusion.'”

      “Planted?” Is it not within reason that the author of the story simply confused cold fusion with the other kind? I’ve seen it happen numerous times before. (Unless…those other stories were *all* planted!) Indeed, Elforsk produced a report on LENR about a year ago that made the same mistake with regard to the dense plasma focus (DPF) device. Was that planted, or merely sloppily researched?

      “The reason this will fail is Lockheed will do little better than other hot fusionists”

      The Joint European Torus achieved a Q (fusion energy gain factor) of ~0.65 in 1997 using deuterium and tritium fuel. In 1998 the JT-60 tokamak produced conditions using deuterium fuel that would have achieved a Q of 1.25 if a mix of deuterium and tritium fuel had been used instead. Unfortunately, building the next generation of tokamaks has been straining the fusion research budgets of countries such as the US, which have not made any significant increases to fusion research funding since the cutbacks of the 1980s. Meanwhile, private sector fusion research companies (mostly pursuing non-tokamak concepts) have been popping up like mushrooms, hoping to beat ITER to the punch. Do you have any actual argument as to why all of these attempts will fail, apart from “no one has succeeded so far”, something that could just as easily have been said of powered flight in 1903, when Langley’s Aerodrome crashed into the Potomac River?

      “PPPL, General Atomics, MIT, DOE, NIF, ITER, etc, etc.- all pie in the sky white collar welfare programs — according to former Director of the Atomic Energy Commission, Princeton plasma physics guru Dr. Robert Bussard.”

      Dr. Bussard did post-graduate work at Princeton while employed at LANL, but as far as I’m aware that’s his only association with the university. What is a “plasma physics guru”? Someone who obtained a Ph.D in plasma physics? In that case, Bussard would certainly qualify. If he had a forte, though, I’d say it was conceptual engineering. Bussard was never a director of the AEC. He was an *assistant director* (under Robert Hirsch) of the *Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction division* of the AEC, for a year or so (1973-74).

      While at the AEC, Bussard and Hirsch managed to increase the fusion research budget (thanks in large part to the sense of urgency brought on by the OPEC oil embargo), and changed the focus of the program from plasma physics research to fusion reactor engineering, with an emphasis on the tokamak. At that time the tokamak was a new line of research (in the West) that had achieved promising results. Hirsch promoted tokamaks throughout his tenure at the AEC/ERDA/DOE, while Bussard left to pursue his own tokamak concept, the Riggatron, in the private sector for nearly a decade. If Hirsch and Bussard had believed, back in the 1970s, that the tokamak concept was unworkable, they could have directed funding elsewhere, or at least taken steps to ensure funding for a variety of alternative confinement concepts.

      In the 1980s the fusion research budget was reduced to the point that pretty much only tokamaks (which had become the main line of fusion research by then) were funded. Dr. Bussard came up with his Polywell concept in the mid-1980s, but the DOE wouldn’t fund it, and he had to live on the scraps the DOD threw him from time to time. So he did what pretty much everyone with an alternative fusion concept that has trouble finding funding does: he badmouthed tokamaks and ITER. Although there are valid criticisms to make of tokamaks, and Bussard was reasonably qualified to make them, his comments have to be understood in that context. For anyone who is interested, GreenWin is probably referring to this letter here:

      http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/1995-6-6%20Letter%20to%20Congress.pdf

      Note that Bussard was only criticizing the mainline magnetic confinement fusion program—particularly tokamaks—and not “hot fusion” research in general, and certainly not his own fusion research concept (the Polywell) and company (EMC2). Indeed, I’m not certain how a small fusion research start-up like EMC2, LPP, or Helion Energy—or even a corporation’s private lab—could be considered a “white collar welfare program”.

      “And should they build something that actually fuses atoms, it will also produce dangerous neutrons which will irradiate the device walls producing more toxic waste.”

      It depends on the particular reaction. D-T fusion produces high-energy neutrons. D-D fusion produces neutrons, but not as high-energy as D-T. D-3He produces even less (actually none, but of course D-D reactions happen too), and 3He-3He and p-11B produce no neutrons at all in the main reaction. Although Lockheed is focusing on D-T right now because it’s the easiest to achieve, they have indicated that in the future they could use a fuel that produces no radioactive waste.

      • GreenWin

        Ivy, you seem upset by my (and Dr. Bussard’s) callous opinion of hot fusion. The facts are hot fusionists have promised the taxpayers “breakthroughs, ignition, unlimited clean energy” for 60 + years. We’ve given fusionists some $250 BILLION tax dollars globally and we have gotten NOT ONE WATT useful energy. In the real world expenditure with no achievement of promise for 60 years would have been terminated 40 years ago. This fully qualifies hot fusion as “pie in the sky.”

        Try to understand the karma in all this. Hot fusionists have been given billions$$$, for SIX decades and delivered ZERO useful energy. It’s time for some new ideas.

        • bachcole

          GreenWin, you failed to mention that a lot of our anger is the result of hot-fusionists saying that cold fusion was impossible, and celebrating as in an actual party before the test results were in, which demonstrates a heavy ego and financial bias, not scientific clarity.

          • Ivy Matt

            The “hot-fusionists” all got together to celebrate cold fusion’s demise? That must have been some party. Was George Miley there too?

          • bachcole

            At MIT in 1989, they actually threw a party to celebrate cold fusion’s demise, your sarcasm notwithstanding.

          • Ivy Matt

            So some people who were hot fusion researchers at MIT in 1989 threw a party celebrating their supposed debunking of cold fusion, and because of this you are upset with everyone who researches hot fusion. Got it. Although I’m still not sure if that includes George Miley.

          • GreenWin

            Thanks bachcole. It will be hard for hot fusionists to live down the MIT debacle and subsequent trashing of Pons & Fleischmann. They will only do so when they confess their hubris and make amends.

        • Ivy Matt

          Just calling you out on your continual misrepresentations of facts. For instance: Dr. Bussard did not share your callous opinion of hot fusion, just of certain people at the DOE. He was a “hot fusionist” himself to the end of his life.

          As for promises, it seems the public has a good memory for dates and projections, but easily forgets the requisite conditions for success, or perhaps automatically assumes they have been met:

          http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._historical_fusion_budget_vs._1976_ERDA_plan.png

          The US has spent more on renewable energy research and development since 1973 than on fusion science since 1953, yet we are still unable to replace our coal and nuclear fission plants with wind, solar, and geothermal energy for baseload generation. Perhaps we should have stopped funding renewable energy R&D in 1993.

          There are often new ideas in fusion research, but if they’re not relevant to the main line of research, they have trouble finding funding. Even if they *are* relevant to the main line of research, they often have trouble finding funding, due to budget limitations. If you actually have some “new ideas”, you can either submit a proposal to the DOE or some other government agency for funding, or you can raise private funding. Many fusion start-ups have taken the latter route, and Lockheed Martin is a private company. If people think your “new ideas” are good enough, they will fund them.

          But why cry over spilt milk, anyway? Rossi has been funded by Industrial Heat. “In Mercato Veritas”. Nothing can stop him now, so why worry about what other people are spending money on?

          • GreenWin

            Ivy, you’re defending a dead horse. We both know that Dr. Bussard called the U.S. Tokamac program “a fraud…” ‘Nuff said. The renewables you name have all contributed to baseload electricity – i.e. they’ve provided a return to the taxpayers. A concept alien to hot fusionists.

            The suggestion that DOE will fund “new ideas” is laughable and will be addressed during Congressional hearings.

            Lockheed Martin is a PUBLIC company traded on the New York Stock Exchange under symbol LMT. Some 80% of Lockheed’s $45B income is from government contracts – which is of course taxpayer money. Every tax payer has a right to question where and how their money is being spent.

            60 years of promises, $250B tax dollars producing ZERO useful energy is hot fusion’s track record. Total FAIL. Here’s a “new idea:” End white collar welfare.

          • Ivy Matt

            “We both know that Dr. Bussard called the U.S. Tokamac program ‘a fraud…’ ‘Nuff said.”

            That was Dr. Bussard’s opinion, probably exaggerated for effect. There are other opinions. But even if we take his opinion as authoritative, he was only talking about the US tokamak program, as you indicate. I will note that Lockheed Martin’s concept is not a tokamak. The tokamak is just one of many fusion confinement concepts. It is perhaps the most thoroughly researched concept, but others may turn out to be better (and smaller). That’s what research is for. To find out.

            “The suggestion that DOE will fund ‘new ideas’ is laughable and will be addressed during Congressional hearings.”

            The DOE is a large federal agency with a lot of bureaucratic inertia for sure, but it is changing gradually (particularly with ARPA-E), and the suggestion that it will fund new ideas is not laughable—unless maybe your “new ideas” are laughable.

            Lockheed Martin is “public” in the sense that it is traded on the stock market. It is “private” in the sense that it is not government-owned. The government is accountable to the tax payers for how it spends their money, but that accountability ends with the government. If the government contracts a programmer to write some software, does the public have a right to tell him how he can spend or invest the money he earns for doing his job? As far as the public is concerned, the only thing that matters is that he did a good job and was not overpaid. (Of course, you could argue that LM did a bad job with the F-35 and was paid too much, and you have a right to do so, but that has no bearing on what research they do in house.)

            “60 years of promises, $250B tax dollars producing ZERO useful energy is hot fusion’s track record. Total FAIL.”

            What, no comment on the graph I linked to?

            George Cayley developed the principles of aeronautics by 1799, maybe as early as 1793. 100 years and numerous attempts later, powered, controlled human flight was a total FAIL. Unfortunately, instead of cutting their losses then, folks just kept on spending more and more money on the boondoggle. 😉

            Also, before throwing stones at hot fusion, you might want to consider LENR’s track record of providing useful energy, or even useful spinoff technologies.

  • georgehants

    bkrharold, of course all understood, but do you not agree that the cure must start somewhere or at least be attempted.
    I have I think a far more optimistic view of humanity, if only they would be allowed to choose their own paths without the coercion and force to comply with those in power, meaning of course the rich.
    I think the average person is basically caring and fair but as you say history has shown they are very easy to lead astray.
    Only a powerful god will lead the way, I think, I like the god of Truth, it almost invariably leads to the best for the most.

  • Gerard McEk

    If hot fusion is to break through then it can only be Dense Fusion Power (See Gordon’s Essay). If it would work as DFP and Gordon predicts, I would be quite happy, epecially because it can directly generate electricity and that may make it quite efficient. I do think that it will generate gamma radiation, though.
    I am quite curious who will win this race.

  • GreenWin

    It is odd but the “public humiliation” to come will be of those who clearly impeded the work. These will be the leaders of fossil/fission industry, and academics lurking about the halls of MIT and CalTech. And of course Bob Park’s American Physical Society.

  • jousterusa

    Well! “…fusion research is ongoing and there is likely to be a major breakthrough in the field that will change the energy landscape, but predicting just what that breakthrough will be, or when it will happen is not possible at this point.” This publication – one I’ve never heard of, even when I lived in India – obviously missed the Third Independent Party report and Mats Lewans’ book, “An Impossible Invention.” Either of those would quickly tell a perceptive author where the future of fusion lies: In the laboratories of Industrial Heat LLC and the prodigious brain of Andrea Rossi. Our breakthrough is here; the author’s will never come. After all, you can’t “predict” what has already happened, czn you?

  • jousterusa

    Well! “…fusion research is ongoing and there is likely to be a major breakthrough in the field that will change the energy landscape, but predicting just what that breakthrough will be, or when it will happen is not possible at this point.” This publication – one I’ve never heard of, even when I lived in India – obviously missed the Third Independent Party report and Mats Lewans’ book, “An Impossible Invention.” Either of those would quickly tell a perceptive author where the future of fusion lies: In the laboratories of Industrial Heat LLC and the prodigious brain of Andrea Rossi. Our breakthrough is here; the author’s will never come. After all, you can’t “predict” what has already happened, can you?

  • Job001

    Complex sequential learning occurs in many complex chaotic science areas such as for transistors, solar, manufacture, drugs, and for hot and cold fusion. These research areas show progress typified by “Learning Curves”.

    “Learning curves” allow formal and also informal prediction of “breakthroughs” such as by Hari Pukkat. For example, here is a chart on the Tokamak with a questionable time scale on the right side; Tokamak_Progress_Graph.jpg

    CF also has had an even better learning curve with progress toward high COP heat yield and LENR needs a fancy LENR_Progress_Graph also, IMO.

  • Job001

    Complex sequential learning occurs in many complex chaotic science areas such as for transistors, solar, manufacture, drugs, and for hot and cold fusion. These research areas show progress typified by “Learning Curves”.

    “Learning curves” allow formal and also informal prediction of “breakthroughs” such as by Hari Pukkat. For example, here is a chart on the Tokamak with a questionable time scale on the right side; Tokamak_Progress_Graph.jpg

    CF also has had an even better learning curve with progress toward high COP heat yield and LENR needs a fancy LENR_Progress_Graph also, IMO.

  • GreenWin

    Ivy, you seem upset by my (and Dr. Bussard’s) callous opinion of hot fusion. The facts are hot fusionists have promised the taxpayers “breakthroughs, ignition, unlimited clean energy” for 60 + years. We’ve given fusionists some $250 BILLION tax dollars globally and we have gotten NOT ONE WATT useful energy. In the real world expenditure with no achievement of promise for 60 years would have been terminated 40 years ago. This fully qualifies hot fusion as “pie in the sky.”

    Try to understand the karma in all this. Hot fusionists have been given billions$$$, for SIX decades and delivered ZERO useful energy. It’s time for some new ideas.

  • GreenWin

    Thanks bachcole. It will be hard for hot fusionists to live down the MIT debacle and subsequent trashing of Pons & Fleischmann. They will only do so when they confess their hubris and make amends.

  • GreenWin

    Ivy, you’re defending a dead horse. We both know that Dr. Bussard called the U.S. Tokamac program “a fraud…” ‘Nuff said. The renewables you name have all contributed to baseload electricity – i.e. they’ve provided a return to the taxpayers. A concept alien to hot fusionists.

    The suggestion that DOE will fund “new ideas” is laughable and will be addressed during Congressional hearings.

    Lockheed Martin is a PUBLIC company traded on the New York Stock Exchange under symbol LMT. Some 80% of Lockheed’s $45B income is from government contracts – which is of course taxpayer money. Every tax payer has a right to question where and how their money is being spent.

    60 years of promises, $250B tax dollars producing ZERO useful energy is hot fusion’s track record. Total FAIL. Here’s a “new idea:” End white collar welfare.