“Dr. Eugene Mallove murdered May 14 2004” If a practical over unity device were to become available, how many Energy companies would go out of business? How many people would lose their jobs? How far would someone go to suppress this device in order to maintain the status quo?
Three free hours of an interview with Eugene Mallove on Coast to Coast AM in February 2004 http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page485.html
International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is now incorporated as a private company. Check out the picture of the new Italian lab. Yummy. Also, see the claims of an Italian high school team confirming anamolous heat production with their repeat of the John Dash Portland Oregon high school team experiments. http://www.iscmns.org/news.htm
A paper has recently been published basically on a theory of cold fusion, referring to trapped neutron catalyzed fusion reactions. The paper itself does not seem available on the web yet but here is information on the book in which it appears http://www.geocities.jp/hjrfq930/News/CFRLEngNews/CFRLEN57.htm That news site above (Cold Fusion Research Laboratory) also states that two conferences are coming up, in Japan starting September 4th and the ICCF11 in France, October 31 ( http://www.iccf11.org/ ).
Mr. Chips: Thanx for mentioning Lysander Spooner, an interesting character. He is referred to an anarchist, but he really seems to be the first objectivist and (like Ayn Rand) one who respected the US constitution and the ideals of the men who created and fought for it. I admire Ayn Rand and recognize Spooner as having developed concepts similar to hers. I wonder if Ayn Rand was aware of him. His concepts are interesting to me, but seem to have no relevance to this thread. For several weeks, I have been too busy with life outside this forum to pay attention to this thread, but still consider cold fusion to be utter nonsense. To me, cold fusion belongs in the same category as Bermuda triangle phenomena, ESP, astral projection, astrology, et cetera. I feel an obligation to spend some time arguing against various types of nonsense. I do not expect to convince the true believers that they are wrong, but hope to prevent the spread of the nonsense to those who have not yet formed an opinion. When I mention this discussion to knowledgeable physicists that I know personally, they laugh and are not willing to waste time discussing the subject. The dearth of articles by main stream physicists against cold fusion is not due to some conspiracy: It is due to contempt for the concept. BTW: The silliest citations are those relating to the fusion of silicon and carbon to produce calcium. Believers in that process show that they are ignorant of basic concepts of nuclear physics. I would certainly agree that there have been many criminal and political conspiracies, some of which might have remained hidden from public view. The conspiracies based on lobbying and buying politicians are not really secret. They survive because the majority of US voters are too stupid to understand how the system works. Discussion of such conspiracies is a digression from the intent and subject matter of this thread. The subject matter of politics, economics, psychology, et cetera are not in the same category as hard science. There are objective criteria for determining the worth of scientific concepts. There are no such criteria in politics, economics, psychology, and other disciplines which pretend to be hard science. Even if extensive successful conspiracies exist in politics, I do not see it as reason to believe in the existence of successful conspiracies in hard science. I repeat my previous view: Mainstream physicists are neither charlatans nor fools. Furthermore, they take pride in their willingness to accept new ideas when supported by valid evidence. There is no way that any significant concept can be suppressed once it has been published and become common knowledge in the scientific community. Are you implying that some technology from the first quarter of the 20th century has been suppressed? There was a myth about a carburetor which would allow a car of the 1940-1960 era to get 100 miles or more on a gallon of gas. The big oil companies were alleged to have suppressed this invention. This is a silly myth that had no basis in fact. As far as I know, the Pogue carburetor was a pre-WW2 scam designed to dupe naive investors. This scam might have been the basis for the later myth about the 100mpg carburetor. Where did you get the idea about hybrid vehicles prior to 1930? What type of hybrid vehicles do you have in mind? Steam and internal combustion? Battery technology was so primitive back then that cars powered by electricity were discarded early in the history of automobiles. A hybrid car in the 1920's? This is nonsense. Until about 20-30 or so years ago, battery technology was not capable of powering practical golf carts and vehicles for the handicapped. Solar cells were certainly not practical in the 1920-1930 era. BTW: Prior to WW2, Curtis publishing company in Philadelphia had electric powered trucks used to transport tons of paper a few miles within the city limits. These vehicles were practical only because traffic conditions prevented any large truck from moving faster than 5-10 mph. I am surprised that you did not somehow come upon this interesting vehicle and use it as an example of suppressed technology relating to early electric powered vehicles. It would be interesting to consider how our civilization would have survived without fossil fuel technology. Until 30-40 years ago, there were no logistically viable alternatives even if you ignored the costs. In the absence some now unknown technology, I expect us to initially rely on the vast coal reserves in western USA when the oil is depleted. Do you have even a vague idea of the economics and logistics of alternatives to petroleum? Perhaps fuel cell or electric powered cars might be feasible. Note that these alternatives require energy generated by nuclear fission or fossil fuel. Solar cells might be viable, and do not require power from another source, but while fossil fuels exist, this technology is too costly to be usable without a quantum leap in technology. BTW: The usual efficiencies quoted for hydrogen fuel cells do not take into account the energy required to manufacture them. A car powered by hydrogen fuel cells requires the use of more energy and fossil fuel that a car using gasoline or diesel fuel. The only advantage is that the fossil fuel is not being burned in our cities.
Dinosaur: "When I mention this discussion to knowledgeable physicists that I know personally, they laugh and are not willing to waste time discussing the subject. The dearth of articles by main stream physicists against cold fusion is not due to some conspiracy: It is due to contempt for the concept." Hmmm, sounds pretty closed minded to me. As far as "articles by main stream physicists" I've dropped a few names but you can always go over to the main site for cf research now, www.lenr-canr.org Go to the library and then launch yourself into researching the credentials of those if you wish. Heck, there really are quite a few, at least two Nobel prize winners too, if not more. My understanding is that Edison alkali cells were mass produced between 1919 and 1942. Their main use was for electric carts at saw mills, factories and for some reason, power for conveyor belts. Put a small engine on the cart and you got a hybrid, not infeasible as far as I can tell. They were replaced by lead acid batteries because they could not compete for power to size ratio. Did you know that these batteries have the potential of lasting for 50,000 years and that in 1976 Westinghouse reported that they had designed a form of that nickle iron cell in larger power to size ration than ever expected for lead-acid cells but that they had no plans on marketing it? I saw that article in a IEEE journal. The carburetor invented and built by Charles Pogue was one of a few designs that came out over time. His was the only one I know of that was based on the idea of totally vaporizing your fuel before mixture with air and ignition. Heck, do you deny that how well you mix your fuel with air is a factor of how efficient it is burned? We are still basically shooting in liquid fuel nowadays. Stuff I find on the web is scant but some of the data is there if you wish to go search. I was part of a research group and lots of hard copy, original patent drawings and details of the cover-up are in a file cabinet to my right. Did you ever look into Olvshinsky's amorphous semiconductor material? I followed his tracks from being ostracized from the United States to successful development eventually in Japan through various publications. I believe there is decent data on the suppression of its development on the web.
Excuse me, you said a dearth of articles "against" cold fusion. Well there are some of those but I think you are right. Most articles I see express an opinion that it is a valid phenomenon.
Mr. Chips: This thread has covered a lot of subject matter. In the interests of confining focus a bit, could you answer the following questions? Do you really believe that a 100 Miles per gallon carburetor existed? BTW: the Pogue carburetor claimed 200 mpg, but was never demonstrated. Do you ascribe any validity to the claim for carbon & silicon fusing to form calcium? Several of the citations you posted make such a claims.
I don't know what reality is but I suspect there have been more efficient ways of using fuel(s) that have been squelched by vested interests and such may have sequestered 100 mile per gallon or more carburetion systems. As far as the second claim, I think it was only in one reference in speculation of Louis Kevran's work on biological transmutations. I do not entirely rule that out as impossible. He came to his conclusions through observation. As far as I can tell only very limited attempts to replicate the studies have been done, some agreeing and some disagreeing. I don't have a belief either way but I think it would be wise to research more. When the evidence doesn't match theory, one should look more to the analysis and replication of the evidence than assume any belief and either reaffirm or change one's theoretical concept. All the jabberwocky in the world wont change anything. Post some data counter to the claims, that is more worthy of your time. I see there are letters out there that denigrate the idea of there ever having been a Pogue carburetor or biological transmutations. Post some links to those so people may become more informed. I'll see if I can dig up some more data on the carburetor, lots of posts out there come to conclusions with very little verified data. See if you can find some well cited presentations counter to the claims of the Pogue carburetor, biological transmutations or more appropriately for this thread, cold fusion.
