LENR Year Of Answers?

Ran into an interesting article on Wired that does a nice “roll up” of the LENR news. It makes it look like 2014 is likely to be the year of “fish or cut bait” for Cold Fusion / Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.


Because folks who make the gadgets are saying they will ship in 2014. Commercial product. Other folks are putting money down for shipments. Either they happen, or they don’t. It is shown real, or “stuff hits the fan”.

I can’t really do any better job than the author of the Wired article already did. I’ve followed some of their links, and I’ll paste here some quotes from those links that help make the case, but really, just read that article.


15 January 14 by David Hambling

Yes, I’m coming to this late. About 5 months late. Oh Well. Hopefully still ‘fresh’ enough to be of interest.

In December, Cyclone Power Technologies, a US company known for its highly innovative Cyclone Engine, announced that Dr Yeong Kim would be joining their consulting team. Dr Kim is a professor at Purdue University and a leading researcher in LENR. In a press statement Dr Kim said that his new role with Cyclone was an opportunity for research to understand and harness cold fusion.

The Cyclone Engine is an external combustion engine — a high-tech steam engine — that can use virtually anything as fuel, from oil or gas to biomass or powdered coal. It can also be powered by waste heat or solar collectors, and Dr Kim suggests that a future Cyclone Engine might have cold fusion as its heat source.

Further down…

Meanwhile Brillouin, one of the lead contenders for commercialising LENR technology, announced in December that they had signed a licence agreement with an un-named South Korean company after a year of due diligence. The deal, […] licenses the Koreans to manufacture cold fusion units, with production and installation in 2014.

So we’ve got a 2014 delivery date claim for Brillouin tech. The article references a link in Pure Energy Systems News:


After a year of due diligence, a firm in S. Korea has signed a license with Brillouin, according to Bob George, CEO. They hope to roll out manufacturing plans by the end of 2014, as well as retrofitting a stranded asset power plant with their clean, easily-affordable, “cold fusion” boiler technology.

by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News

So not only a 2014 date, but also power plant scale. That’s a pretty big sized boiler. Not a table top scale. In the following quote “Bob” is their CEO:

But the development that Bob said is “the most significant event” they’ve had, and which I could be the first to announce, is that just before Christmas, they signed a multi-million dollar licensing contract with a firm in South Korea,[…]

This contract came after a year of the firm performing their due diligence. […]

He hopes that by the end of 2014 they will be ready for roll-out of manufacturing, handing over a set of prints to licensees to build and beta-test units. He said that they would have already done the beta testing on their end, by then.

OK, it’s got a weasel in it with the “end of 2014″ that can easily be stretched into mid 2015… but only with some eyebrows raised. By that time, even with a stretch, they ought to have large hardware being moved around and visible.

What Bob is most keen to secure by contract is a “stranded asset” power plant in the range of 5-10 MW willing to beta test their HHT system as a retrofit solution to replace their coal-, or biomass-, or other polluting source that has had to be shut down due to environmental regulations. They would take out the old boiler and scrubber and replace it with their HHT technology. He thinks this could begin to be installed by the end of 2014, as well.

The cost for producing power in such a retrofitted scenario would be 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. Bob is confident that once one plant has been retrofitted as a demonstrator, many others will want to retrofit as well.

They do have another power plant ready to implement the technology, but it’s not a stranded asset scenario.

Well, that’s pretty clear. 5 MW is going to be visible in the construction. Also note the 2 ¢ / kWhr cost. Nice. IF this is real, the whole attempt to kill off western industry via coal bans and CO2 caps goes “up in smoke”, as this just slides into the boiler room… I don’t know which matters more. The derailing of the CO2 Tyrants, or the wide availability of cheap electricity. Lets all hope it’s real.

Further down that Wired article, they mention a New Energy Times article that spots a shift in government attitudes toward funding some LENR research.

The DoE provides funding for innovative energy projects via their Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E). The latest funding opportunity announcement included a new addition in the list of technologies which the DoE is interested in: alongside solar, photochemical reactors and radioisotope thermoelectrics and many more, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions made the cut.


U.S. Department of Energy Invites Submission of LENR Proposals
Jan. 3, 2014 – By Steven B. Krivit –

New Energy Times has just learned that, on Sept. 27, 2013, the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) quietly announced a funding opportunity for low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research, among other areas.

This first-ever direct invitation from the Department of Energy for submission of proposals to fund this research marks a significant point in the field’s history. […]
ARPA-E made its announcement in its “Funding Opportunity No. DE-FOA-0001002, CFDA Number 81.135,” at this Web site. […] Here is a direct link to a PDF of the invitation. LENRs are listed in item 3.6 in Figure 3 on page 11 of 27 in the PDF.

The links are:


The PDF link:

It also looks like ARPA likes obscure URLs…

The Wired article goes on to look at Rossi and his connection via a couple of hops to a Chinese money source. Then wanders off to the the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project and a claim of a variation that makes detected radiation. Link here:


We have accomplished a few experiments that appear to show small amounts of excess energy (6 to 10%). These results still face a number of open questions that we are diligently working through.

We have shared evidence of a repeatable rise in counts from a Geiger counter. We continue to work to validate these results in new experiments and with better instruments.

OK, positive results. But not exactly an earth shaking ‘rise’…

I actually found this article more interesting:


It covers some fascinating processing of metals at a very small feature scale, and also has a fascinating sidebar or two. Like this one on a novel way to weld glass plates:

My best guess is that the Ni micro-powder had adsorbed moisture on its surface with an H-O-H attached to a surface nickel oxide oxygen atom as …-Ni-Ni-O-H-O-H. When the Fe2O3 is added, a loose bond comes from the dangling H atom as
…-Ni-Ni-O-H-O-H-O-Fe-O-Fe-O-Fe-O-…. Depending on the initial humidity, there could be longer chains of H-O-H-O-H … between the two surfaces.

Hydrophilic bonding is used commercially to bond flat glass plates together, for example to make hermetic crystal packages or optical interferometer components. Just take two clean, flat plates of glass, wet them, place them together, and heat. Initially each surface would look something like
…-Si-O-Si-O with a dangling oxide on the surface. The water chain between them forms
When heated, H-O-H groups drop out of the sandwich until you are left with only
and, at that stage the glass surfaces are permanently bonded. This also occurs in nature, agglomerating smaller oxides particles into larger clusters, and is one reason why nanopowder is not found in nature on the Earth.

Might be fun to try heating some wet glass plates, powders, whatever.

In Conclusion

Looks like while I wasn’t paying attention, the LENR field has gotten much further along. It also looks like this year ought to be the year we get a final answer to “is it or isn’t it?”.

At this point I’d normally love to spend a day or so delving into one Rabbit Hole or another, and adding a lot of ‘what is happening now’ and getting caught up. Unfortunately, instead I’ll be at work managing computer stuff and assuring that Disaster Recovery sites work for this coming hurricane season. Which promises to be a dud. But I digress…

So if folks have a favorite update link or article, feel free to post ’em up here. With any luck we’ll have more than just “someday maybe” news stories and possibly even a construction site photo or two in the next 6 months.

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Nukes, Oil Energy Nukes, Science Bits, Tech Bits and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

207 Responses to LENR Year Of Answers?

  1. Terry Jay says:

    The Arctic would seem an ideal place for a real-world test. Diesel generators are the current option, and you need to store a LOT of fuel to make it thru the winter. As you note, real installations producing real power in real places. Or not.

  2. M Simon says:

    Much further along? The scam has expanded.

    I don’t think you will get one of these gadgets past the safety review until how they operate is explained.

    So tell me Chief – where is the explanation?

    Dr Kim suggests that a future Cyclone Engine might have cold fusion as its heat source.

    Might have cow farts as a back up alternative.

    Once the units are proven, George expects many other customers to be interested in similar retrofitting.

    And the proof will be arriving real soon now. On a special train. Powered by magic dust and diesel fuel. The diesel fuel is only for back up in case the magic dust supplies prove inadequate for the whole run.

    This represents the first US government recognition that the technology might be valuable.

    And it might not. But who cares? It is only taxpayers money.

    And what about the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, the open-source consortium which set out to provide a simple, low-cost means of demonstrating that cold fusion is a real effect? While their attempts to prove excess heat production have been frustratingly slow, they had a surprising breakthrough in producing gamma radiation, an effect duplicated across two sites.

    The NRC is going to want to know how this device operates if they plan to scale up. BTW is Wired admitting that LENR is not a proven technology? Yes. We don’t even know if the effect is real. Let alone that it can produce anything but hot water. If that.

    Even so, 2014 is set to be a very interesting year for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Scams.


  3. M Simon says:

    Reactions – I wonder if strike works?

  4. M Simon says:

    It took about 10 to 15 years from the first experimental pile – Chicago 1 – to commercial nuke plants and nuke submarines. We are 25 years on with LENR and so far – nothing.

    The nuke plants were based on verified experiments and theory. So far with LENR? Verified nothing. And you have the problem that some experiments make heat after hundreds of hours of conditioning and some experiments produce – nothing. “Same” materials and definitely the same experimenters.

  5. philjourdan says:

    It seems they are building better mouse traps, but from the articles, I am not seeing LENR. But then those pesky confidentiality agreements (understandable given the commercial implications).

    I guess we will still have to wait and see. I see incremental improvements on existing technology, not a breakthrough technology.

  6. M Simon says:

    But then those pesky confidentiality agreements (understandable given the commercial implications).

    But also a GOOD cover for fraud.

  7. Roger Bird says:

    2014 will be an important year for LENR, but there is no and will be no “or cut bait”. Given that LENR is already proven many times, if 2014 does not break the dam of incredulity, there really is no need to quit. Rossi, McKurbe, et. al. will just keep on truckin’. And Rossi is not the slightest bit interested in proving to the public and the skeptopaths. He is only focused on marketing his device.

  8. M. Simon,
    You nailed it!

    I seem to remember similar breathless excitement exactly three years agq:

    Note the video featuring Brian Josephson in the “Comments”.

  9. R. de Haan says:

    Wired is pushing crappy “progress news” for years now.
    From flying cars to a fridge sized battery able to power your home and stores wind and solar for only $ 2.000,-.

    Oh yes, all those wonderful inventions will be available within two years.

    The primary function of Wired is to lure people into the trap of accepting green policies before we have the technological solutions to ban our fossil fueled economy.
    If I came up with a LENR solution today able to produce electricity at a price of 2 cents per Kw, there are two scenario’s.
    1. I am a liar, dreamer, a fool or a lunatic and I live.
    2. I am sane and serious and the application is going to work in which case corporate America is banging on my door buying the concept or I will be shot in the head tomorrow.

    The last thing the current establishment wants is 2 cents per Kw electricity outside the current power chain.

    The reality is that when I would be working on such a project you wouldn’t read about it in Wired.

  10. @ R. de Haan
    I hope you problem is that your are not informed , neither of the real history, nor of recent progress and evidences. From the hearsay, like wikipravda or APS your position is rational, and I have a similar one on exotic energy, anti-nuclear claims, homeopathy…

    I will try to give few data, completing what is already here

    about the theory, I disagree, in an agnostic way.
    the best approach is for me by Edmund Storms, the LENR editor/reviewer of Naturwissenschaften
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf (paper)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpdvwaQSnA (video)
    He is the author if that review published in naturwissenschaften
    and of this student manual
    Anyway no theory is validated. What I support in ed Storm vision, is the approach, based on conservatism.

    To understand the real story of cold fusion, best is to read Excess Heat by Charles Beaudette
    This book is really very documented, informative, educative, and in a way passionate like an ICC report.

    to understand how the frauds and manipulations against cold fusion was conducted, beside the good description in excess heat you can read :
    the 4th page is making a good summary of the tragedy causes. the rest is on Titanic myth and is educative too.
    You can learn many fallacies used in that Wiki-deleted article
    To weigh the failing replicators incompetence facing the positive replicators
    and to laugh a little, hearing Morisson be bashed by a competent electrochemist.

    E-cat is a new challenge, and if there is in theory a little chance of a negative report, reasonable people know the result of the test just because it is not abandonned.
    Read the fantastic book of Mats Lewan on E-cat saga: An Impossible invention
    http://animpossibleinvention.com/ (it seems some here have read it? no conspiracy inside!)

    you can also read those links
    Sweden http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Trycksaker%20och%20broschyrer/elforsk_perspektiv_nr2_2013.pdf#page=4 US http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/industrial-heat-has-acquired-andrea-rossis-e-cat-technology-241853361.html china http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/05/09/tom-darden-involved-in-opening-of-nickel-hydrogen-energy-research-center-in-tianjin-china/
    and on critics
    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2620 http://it.ibtimes.com/articles/52396/20130708/fusione-fredda-gravi-critiche-test-indipendenti-intervista-bo-hoistad.htm http://ecatnews.com/?p=2528 http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/05/26/1232/8502322_qa-with-hanno-essen-regarding-recent-e-cat-test/

    about NASA I can give you few links about SUGAR NASA/Boeing story, Doug Wells seedling, and the historical NASA GRC/Fralick experiments.
    http://www.lenrnews.eu/about-nasa-research-are-cold-fusionlenr-planes-already-feasible/ https://connect.arc.nasa.gov/p1zygzm2h3i/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal
    http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/SeedlingWELLS.pdf http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf
    about military work, DoD, Navy here are some other links
    http://www.lenrnews.eu/dod-darpa-and-cold-fusionlenr-are-they-watching-or-trying-to-save-usa-industry/ http://hdl.handle.net/10355/36786 http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/leading-researcher-says-he-has-replicated-at-least-five-lenr-technologies-for-us-government-admits-working-for-darpa-2 http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/BossPreparataMedal.pdf http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/NAVY/20120207SPAWAR-JWK-Synopsis-of-Refereed-LENR-Publications.pdf

    You can read more general article on paradigm change resistance, groupthink
    http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf
    and science history
    interesting also to understand conspiracy theorists, like physicists.

    There is much more data of great interest, but just reading the book of Beaudette and the Titanic article give you a hint.

    Probably some skeptic will be unable to consider seriously what is in Beaudette, and it is thus not needed to continue reading as no data can convince deluded people (as well described in the Groupthink papers of Roland Benabou).

    good reading, best regards.

  11. L. E. Joiner says:

    M Simon is right. Is it really conceivable that a mature technology capable of producing 5-10 MW of electricity can be kept secret? No local, state, or national government is going to license construction of such a plant without replicable knowledge of how it works. Nor is it conceivable that everyone in different groups working on such technology has been bound forever by non-disclosure agreements—someone would have spilled the beans by now. Sounds a little like the guy who claimed his fancy metal detectors had found Malaysian Air Flight 370 in the Bay of Bengal.

    /Mr Lynn

  12. Steve C says:

    R. de Haan is right. Free(ish) power in any form treads on some very sensitive, very powerful toes. I think (hope) there have been enough stories about mysterious men turning up and “persuading” you to stop your activities to make anyone who’s mucking about in this field pretty wary – whether the stories are apocryphal or not doesn’t really matter.

    I’d hope, R., that when you had the project working reliably, full detailed plans would suddenly turn up all over the net one day – that’s the way I’d release such knowledge, just to make sure it really was “out”. At least that way, even if “They” still thought it worth punishing me, I’d be able to go with a big smile on my face. :-D

    OTOH, I can’t be the only person thinking along those lines. But … no plans turn up – not without you sending somebody money, anyway, in which case, assume it won’t work. We watch. We wait. We wonder. But we still ain’t got that “Wow!” moment. I wonder whether I’ll see it before I fall off my perch.

  13. J Martin says:

    2014 ? that’ll be 2114 then.

    The answer to the 2 cents conundrum is easy, don’t tell them that’s what it will costt, just increase your profit margi until it is more expensive than commercial electricity and then ask government for a green subsidy as it reduces co2. Then laugh all the way to the bank.

  14. R. Shearer says:

    Thanks, Gallopingcamel. Three years went fast and I am still skeptical.

  15. agimarc says:

    Happily, there seems to be some progress at Polywell. Following paper seems to address start issues with the WB8 design. H/t Classical Values this morning. Cheers –



  16. M Simon says:

    agimarc says:
    6 June 2014 at 5:29 pm

    Thanks for that – it has been a very busy day. Focus Fusion is also in the mix. See links here:


  17. Paul Hanlon says:

    For anybody that watches Gold Rush, this guy seems to be the Tony Beets of Coldfusion. He claims he has tested fifteen systems on behalf of DARPA, and has been able to reproduce five of them, and helped the company linked to in this post, Broullion. There’s something very believable about the guy. Also, it would appear that Industrial Heat was the company who bought the licensing to the e-Cat. They seem to be a proper company, but there is very little information from either Business Week, or their SEC filing. Michael McKubre, on the other hand, is most definitely the real deal.

  18. M Simon says:

    Paul Hanlon says:
    8 June 2014 at 12:30 am

    Interesting. Using nickel for fuel seems problematic from an economic and resource standpoint.

  19. bruce says:

    the e-cats guy could make the presents of co2 questionable. For that reason alone I doubt anything he .proposes. Sorry, some guys just don’t carry any gravitas. The fact a company bought into his device only suggests a tax loss or green energy grant to me.

  20. Paul Hanlon says:

    Interesting interview with Robert Godes of Brillouin about the tech behind his invention. First thirty minutes is a chat between the host and Sterling D. Allen about general tech in the industry, so you might want to skip that to get to the real meat of the video.
    Godes talks about the various transitions hydrogen goes through from Deuterium -> Tritium -> Quadratium -> Helium 4, and the cost benefit in energy terms at each stage. I was pretty tired when I started listening, but someone who actually knows about these things might get enough information to establish whether the guy was blowing smoke. My BS detector tells me he definitely sounded plausible and honest about the challenges it faces.

  21. @m simon
    nickel is not a problems.
    if nicke is consumed (few grams for few kW for 6 month) less than 1% of yearly nickel production is needed for all planet energy.

    moreover it seems the nickel to copper theory is abandoned by rossi, and is rejected by others (like Brillouin, and does not match PdD observation) and nicked is not consumed, but at worst is accidentally transmuted by parasitic nuclear reactions.

    My quick computation also result is estimating that if the reactor cost about 5k$ for 50kWth, and is used to produce electicity, the 6mont of GDP will be enough to pay all the reactors on the planet.

    the cost is about 1/10 of nuclear energy.
    i expect much better because that energy can be localized, and thermal energy is main consumption, thus electricity conversion is not required.
    cost of logistic, of pollution, of safety is to be removed too.
    it will help many zoen with bad logictic, bad governance (africa), allowing local production of energy. a bit like what mobile phone and internet allowed for emerging countries.
    cost of centralization, electricity transport too, resilience too… if we move to microgrid or nogrid.
    of course this will take 20-40 years like from horse to Ford T and Traction.

    @paul hanlon
    Brillouin is a good candidate, and may take the lead later, but today he seems late compared to Rossi, who is now tamed in a corp.
    His bad point is that he propose a theory. Theory is the problem that plagued cold fusion, fueled denial, prevented research, and misled many lab research.
    His good point is that he seems to be the ghost candidate of US, through DoD/Navy collaboration with SRI.

    I’ve developped my ideas in that article
    very speculative, but there is interesting facts.

    Note that in the same way I suspect that US/NASA try to save boeing from being late
    and… maybe is it needed.

    What is very strange is to see Nasa and Dod labs work on LENR despite what seems a harsh opposition from the authorities… is it just bad governance, skunkwork team, or hidden black suit conspiracy against physicist and media collective delusion.

    same in italy with ENEA/INFN which despite opposition continue to work on “ridiculous projects” and have results.

    I have the tendency to believe it is lack of control, cowardice, political wars, individual beliefs, and not conspiracy that led to those strange outliers. But I cannot eliminate intelligent move upfront.

  22. E.M.Smith says:

    I’m a bit surprised at the degree of “BS” being called. What I didn’t post due to time constraints was a long list of “confirmations”. This afternoon, if I get the time, I’ll do that. What is impressive about the “confirmations” is WHO and WHAT. We have folks from MIT, NASA, DARPA, SRI, Toyota, Mitsubishi, etc. etc. all saying they found both excess heat and ‘other stuff’ where the other stuff is everything from Cu where the original Ni didn’t have any to in some cases radiation produced. It’s pretty clear something is happening that is real. Can it be commercialized? That waits to be seen.

    Most of it is from 2012 so I’d figured it was ‘old news’ and not mentioned it. Here’s some links to explore while I finish coffee, find out what I do for the day, and see if I can make a decent posting of it:

    Mitsubishi confirms Toyota transmutation work:


    Includes a series of youtube videos of the professor in question talking about the device. Says it isn’t commercial as the COP is ‘only’ 4 IIRC. Though this one says COP 10 was done in public:

    Over the last several years, there have been many reports around the world about important multiple successes with what is popularly known as “Cold Fusion”, or more properly what is now known as “Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions” (LENR). The latest was from January 31, 2012 at M.I.T. in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Professors Peter L. Hagelstein and Mitchell Swartz gave a symposium and short class where a successful 2-day LANL / LENR/ Cold Fusion experiment was done publicly that produced at least 10 times the energy out, than was used.



    “Several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted,” according to Dennis Bushnell, Langley’s chief scientist, in an article he wrote for NASA’s Future Innovation website. This, he wrote, indicates that “when the conditions are ‘right’ prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released.” But it’s also an argument for the approach that the Langley researchers favor: master the theory first.

    The epiphany

    “For NASA Langley,” according to Bushnell’s article, “the epiphany moment on LENR was the publication of the Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction LENR Theory,” which was published in 2006. According to Zawodny and Bushnell, this theory provides a better explanation than “cold fusion” for the results which researchers have obtained over the last couple of decades. And it might explain much more than that. At a meeting of the American Nuclear Society in November 2012, the theory’s co-developer, Lewis Larsen, speculated that LENR may occur naturally in lightning—not only on present-day Earth, but also in the primordial cloud of gas and dust that became our solar system. If true, LENR might solve a mystery uncovered by NASA’s Genesis mission, that the pattern of oxygen isotopes on the sun differs greatly from that of Earth.


    February 12, 2013

    By Bob Silberg,
    NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

    How would you like to replace your water heater with a nuclear reactor? That’s what Joseph Zawodny, a senior scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center, hopes to help bring about. It would tap the enormous power of the atom to provide hot water for your bath, warm air for your furnace system, and more than enough electricity to run your house and, of course, your electric car.
    If your thoughts have raced to Fukushima or Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, let me reassure you. Zawodny is not suggesting that you put that kind of reactor in your house. What he has in mind is a generator that employs a process called Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions. (The same process is sometimes called Lattice Energy Nuclear Reactions. We’ll just call it LENR.)
    Joseph Zawodny holds a device with which he simultaneously conducted 48 LENR experiments, each using a different oscillation frequency.
    We start by processing nickel so that it can hold hydrogen the way a sponge holds water. The hydrogen is ionized, meaning that each hydrogen atom has its electron stripped away, leaving only a proton.

    Electrons in the metal are made to oscillate together in such a way that the electromagnetic energy stored in tens of thousands of them is transferred to a relative few, giving them enough energy to merge with nearby protons (the hydrogen ions) and form slow-moving neutrons. Those neutrons, as we noted, are immediately captured by nuclei of the metal atoms, setting in motion a chain of events which turns the nickel into copper and releases useful energy.

    The 1 percent solution

    One percent of the nickel mined each year could meet the world’s energy requirements at around a quarter of the cost of coal, according to estimates cited by Bushnell.

    And a lot more.

    Yes, some of it smacks of hype (especially that NASA bit… they of the climate hype type…) but some of it is clearly not (like the Toyota / Mitsubishi folks).

    I’ve not spent the time to sort it out properly, nor to make an organized understanding of the 2012 to date changes; but the very clear difference is that it is no long the “lone wolf crank” making unsubstantiated press releases and asking for money (and time). It’s now “name names” saying THEY have made it work.

    SRI (a PDF) results. Stanford Research Institute.
    Yes, that Stanford is where it originated. It is “just down the street” and I’ve stood in front of it several times. “The real deal” in independent high tech labs.

    Down in the ‘what is next’ part:

    Research consortia:
    e.g. SRI/MIT/NRL/ENEA/Energetics
    • Technical development:
    > 10 x Heat Out / Power In
    Positive Temperature Coefficient?

    Note National Research Labs, MIT. SRI. These are not folks to put their reputations at risk for garbage. They KNOW they have something or they would not be saying a word.

    Earlier up:

    Nuclear ash correlated with the excess heat? Yes!
    Q5 Uncorrelated nuclear products? Yes!
    • 2π, real time, “in situ” X-ray detector
    • Gamma and X-ray spectrometer (Wolf)
    • Neutron spectrometer (Wolf & Lockheed)
    •Charged particles: , p+ (MIT)
    • Residual isotopics effects (SRI & other)
    • Tritium (SRI & Clarke)
    • Helium: 3He and 4He (Amarillo, PNNL & Clarke)
    • Correlated heat and 4He.
    • Unequivocal evidence of Tritium production.
    McKubre et al, “Emergence of a coherent explanation…”, Proc. ICCF8, Lerici (2000)

    And a whole lot of interesting apparatus diagrams, graphs, charts, etc. etc.

    The Big Boys are in the game now, and doing the science to try to explain what is happening.
    FWIW, the Widom / Larsen theory is their favorite per what I read.

    So until I’m able to put all that into something that has “flow”, take a look at it. Ponder it. There IS something there. The question is, IMHO, can it be made a product?

  23. p.g.sharrow says:

    ChiefIO ; “There IS something there. The question is, IMHO, can it be made a product?”
    I whole heartedly agree! This LENR “only” has a “COP of 4 to 6″. maybe up to 20! HENR has reached a COP of nearly 0.98 after hundreds of billions of dollars and 50 years of effort by thousands of the best minds that Government Money can buy. Time for them to admit that they are chasing a dream that I dismissed back in 1960.
    EMSmith has compiled a wonderful amount of information in his previous efforts. I have gathered the details of A.Rossi’s device at my blog. I see no reason that anyone with “knowledge in the art” could not get real results in this field. The most difficult part is creation of the “cartridge”. Working with nano particle nickle is not a simple thing. It must be “enriched” as well. Only none stable isotopes will work.
    There is a prophecy for this time of two “gifts” to the human race. One is a new energy source that passivates radioactive materials. pg

  24. Zeke says:

    “Can it be made a product?”

    The usefulness of a device that has a stable heat reaction of 200-600F is without question. Even if the simple conversion to electricity still in progress, water at those temperatures would open a whole new level of home use technology including purifying water and food preservation. Most importantly farmers could create their own ammonia on site. Andrea Rossi’s ecat is ready to roll, and Chief of all people, I would think, would know ways to use temps like that independently of grid control. Yours, Zeke

    ref: “Fertilizer generated from ammonia produced by the Haber process is estimated to be responsible for sustaining one-third of the Earth’s population.[6] It is estimated that half of the protein within human beings is made of nitrogen that was originally fixed by this process; the remainder was produced by nitrogen fixing bacteria and archaea.[7]”

  25. Zeke says:


    What could you do with that? A lot of electricity is used to get those temps, and here you have them on the spot. Now think big…

  26. Paul Hanlon says:

    Although I used the term BS in my posting, I meant it in the positive sense. There’s definitely something to it, I’m convinced of that now after looking deeper into it following this posting. The main problem seems to be controlling it, with Brillouin being closest to having achieved it, according to Robert Godes, its founder, and Michael McKubre, who as I said is the Tony Beets of Cold Fusion, you just implicitly trust him.

    I’ve been a lifelong smoker and last year these new e-Cigarettes came out. I have to tell you, it has improved my lung function dramatically, enhanced my sense of smell, eyesight, and general wellbeing. The only “emissions” are water vapour, and an apple-y sort of smell.

    Despite all these positives, the EU is banning the use of all e-Cigarette products from the start of 2016 without any reason why, and individual countries have already banned its use in public places. This leads me to think that when cold fusion does become viable, you can be sure that that will be banned as well, especially any units that might potentially be “home-sized”. So that, along with the death of a family member (mother, after a long battle with heart and lung problems), is probably why I’m not jumping up and down at this wonderful innovation.

  27. Jason Calley says:

    @ Paul Hanlon
    I do not smoke, but like you I have seen the irrational restrictions being placed on electronic cigarettes. Maybe I should say “seemingly irrational.” While a normal person may not see any good reasons for keeping e-cigs off the market, such a restriction makes perfect sense if one makes some simple assumptions. Assume for the sake of argument that the regulators do not care about public health, but are instead interested in a high return of taxes from citizens. People who smoke tobacco pay more taxes during their lives. Most work a lifespan of relatively normal output and length. Many will die somewhat sooner and incur a shorter retirement period and lower overall lifetime health care costs (compared to non-smokers.) The regulators may not be good at ethics, but they can do math when it is in their interest to do so.

    LENR? Yes! definitely something there! Is it nuclear? Some new and unknown force? I do not know — but every scientific revolution starts by a few unexplained phenomena, and so-called “cold fusion” may be a start. Hope is not a plan, but I sure hope that this comes to fruition. I want my atomic helicopter! And water heater! The one thing that the powers that be fear more than anything is decentralization. Anything which decentralizes access to the necessities of life weakens their control. The nice thing that decentralized energy does, is it allows individuals to control their own electricity — and heat — and transportation — and access to water (cheap power and you can pull what you want from the air) — and fertilizer (ditto pulling nitrogen) — and waste disposal — and, and, and… Add a 3D printer to that and decentralized energy is a recipe for individual freedom.

  28. M Simon says:

    The current problem with LENR from a commercial stand point is that it occasionally gives off gammas (possibly x-rays as well). That means regulatory death from the NRC. Not to mention the danger from unexpected bursts of radiation.

    Without a solid theory and control based on that theory the LENR home water heater is just a dream. Industrial would probably fare better.

  29. E.M.Smith says:

    Looks like the Navy has a patent on a LENR nuclear waste burner that just happens to make excess energy when used in an existing spent fuel pile…
    Patented in 2007, but kept out of the news for a while…

    Also ran into some graphs showing temp / output spikes / variation along with large variation in H2 holding ability of metals with temperature. Combine those two facts I think you get the explanation of the controlabilty issues… Partial pressure excursions of large degree with temp swings along with reaction rate swings leading ot instability at higher rates. “Low and slow” needed, but you need “fast enough” to make it go…

    Mitsubishi is using Pd / CaO mixed layers in a sandwitch with D2 flowing crosswise to transmute things. Confirmed by Toyota engineers. They claim 10x as much hydrogen absorption in the Pd / CaO matrix. Doesn’t work with MgO for their setup. (One wonders if Ni / MgO / H2 might work instead of Pd / CaO / D2 … moving everything up a notch in weight. Some ion size compares would also be nice…) But at a minimum it shows that Metal / Metal Oxide matrix materials have potentials. That’s a hugh search space and going ot make it hard to limit the use of the tech via patent (i.e. patent on Pd / D2 doesn’t touch Ni/ H2 doesn’t touch Pd/CaO doesn’t touch…. so lots of folks with different tech likely in the future …)

    Then there is this DIY using a common USA Nickel …


    Oh, and folks ought to review the up-thread comments as some were stuck in SPAM and a couple were in Moderation. I’ve kicked them loose, but they are a day or two up thread. One has a lot of interesting links in it…

  30. omanuel says:

    E.M. Smith et al.,

    What is most needed is acceptance that world leaders had legitimate reason in August 1945 to FEAR that Earth’s atmosphere might be ignited accidentally and therefore rational justification for hiding the source of energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores of heavy atoms like uranium and plutonium – neutron repulsion!


    Rest mass data leave absolutely no doubt that neutron repulsion is the source of energy in cores of:

    1. Heavy atoms like Uranium
    2. Some planets like Jupiter
    3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
    4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
    5. The expanding Universe!

    Regretfully, science cannot benefit society until sixty-nine years of scientific deceit are acknowledged.

    That will not happen unless skeptics admit that world leaders had valid reason to deceive the public in 1945 and work for peaceful reconciliation.

  31. Roger Bird says:

    Announcing something is the equivalent of “Randall says”, which is the new “Rossi says”. It is hot air and is extremely inexpensive. When they demonstrate over-unity, then I will listen.

    I didn’t even read the announcement. Words on a screen are “Randall says”. Rossi demonstrated his claims to suit me. Let Randall do likewise. Then I will be impressed. Then I will celebrate.

  32. omanuel says:

    I have little doubt about the validity of the original cold fusion claims from Utah, but LENR claims may be another official distraction like fusion reactors, to avoid addressing nine pages of precise experimental data (pp. 19-27 of biography) that show the Sun’s pulsar core:
    1. Made our elements
    2. Birthed the solar system 5 Ga ago
    3. Sustained the origin and evolution of life after 3.5 Ga ago
    4. Maintains contact with every atom, life and world in the solar system now.

    The Sun’s pulsar core leaves little or no room for would-be-tyrants to rule the world.

  33. Roger Bird says:

    You’re not playing with a full deck.

  34. omanuel says:

    @Roger Bird

    These precise experimental data (pages 19-27) are inconsistent with the standard solar model:


  35. Zeke says:

    I am 25 min into Randall Mills’ demonstration. He is getting quite a few explosions (“jumpin johnnies” (: ) using an arc electrode applied to a conductor (silver, copper) with a small layer of water. He is just about to use a calorimeter to measure the thermal energy from the reaction!


  36. Pingback: Free energy, LENR & cold fusion | T W A W K I

  37. omanuel says:

    Might these observations be related to the 5th force, interactions between the condensed and expanded forms of matter?


  38. omanuel says:

    Information is coming out now that is difficult for the public to accept:


    IMHO, public forgiveness and peaceful reconciliation are the only viable way to restore sanity to the world.

  39. aashfield says:


    1. Cyclone Power is not promising because Defkalion, who are the proposed source of power, have apparently been caught manipulating the water flow in the test that was supposed to prove it. Dr. Kim, an expert in LENR, has never actually witnessed the Defkalion reactor working.

    2. That DOE has agreed to fund LENR is not quite true. There are some weasel words in the statement that suggests it maybe for other things.

    3. The best source for references about LENR is http://www.lenrproof.com. What AlainCo wrote and his references are also good.

    4. The problem with the 25 year delay MSimon complains of came about because MIT and Cal tech failed to reproduce Pons and Fleischmann. This got cold fusion labeled as pathological science and few would touch it after this. The replication failed because the Palladium had not been loaded with sufficient Deuterium and the hot fusion physicists running the experiments were were too arrogant to ask for help. It has since been replicated. Worse, DOE persuaded the patent office not to grant any patents on cold fusion so new inventions could not be protected. The patent situation is now a real mess.

    5. The work following P & S was still mainly palladium and deuterium. As far as I know there has been little progress so far in getting the power output increased from a few watts.

    6. The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has many admirers because of their careful work. So far they have found little anomalous heat, but it is early days. Their results would probably be believed.

    7. The game really changed with Andrea Rossi using nickel and hydrogen. In fact he wasn’t the first to do this, but apparently working in an Edisonian way for hundreds of experiments he was able to get kW out. I think the early experiment run by Dr. Levi after the first public demo, using just water calorimetry was very significant. He found an output of 20kW peaking at 130kW for a short time.
    Apart from the public demos, that have been criticized by those who point out how they could have been faked, the two 100 hour tests by Elforsk last year were independent and believable. They were sufficiently promising that Elforsk undertook a six month continuous trial away from Rossi’s premises, that I believe will provide undeniable proof the E-Cat works and that LENR is real. THe report is expected later this month. Read Rossi’s story in Mat Lewans excellent book at http://www.Animpossibleinvention.com

    8. Rossi says he is currently working on the infamous 1 MW plant. I expect that will be available for limited inspection by the end of the year. Rossi has long forecast that only a working commercial unit will persuade the critics and he is probably right.

  40. gallopingcamel says:

    p.g.sharrow says:
    8 June 2014 at 4:39 pm
    “…..There is a prophecy for this time of two “gifts” to the human race. One is a new energy source that passivates radioactive materials. pg”

    This comment intrigued me although it may be that I have misunderstood what “pg” meant.

    We already have energy sources that can consume nuclear waste (if that is what you mean by “..passivates radioactive materials”). They are called breeder reactors and they come in a wonderful range of shapes and sizes. My personal favorites are the MSR Molten Salt Reactors) in general and the LFTR in particular:

  41. p.g.sharrow says:

    @gallopingcamel; I am not sure that a breeder reactor can be considered to passivate radioactive materials as it makes some materials more radioactive as it speeds break down of others. Breeders make fissionables from more stable atoms. The A.Rossi device requires unstable nickel and creates stable copper as a waste product and the spent cartridge emits no radiation. IIRC a used breeder reactor is “hot” for quite some time. MSR have one very serious problem. Molten salt is an engineering nightmare, it eats everything! Works fine under test conditions but I would not want to invest in a commercial venture. The plant will “die” before payback is reached. pg

  42. gallopingcamel says:


    I know that you and Oliver understand what follows so this is aimed at a wider audience.

    Generation I & II nuclear reactors burned 0.5 to 0.8% of their fuel. Jimmy Carter (trained to operate naval nuclear reactors) banned French style wet reprocessing so we ended up with ~75,000 tonnes of “Nuclear Waste”. Breeder reactors such as the LFTR can burn over 99% of their fuel. They can also consume “Nuclear Waste”.

    If we chose to burn our “Nuclear Waste” in LFTRs the 75,000 tonnes of long lived radioactives would be reduced to ~375 tonnes. The remaining waste products would be in the form of stable elements (some of them of great value) and short lived radioactives.

    In the process of burning our “Nuclear Waste” (Free Fuel?) $66 trillion of electricity would be generated ($66,000,000,000,000 assuming $100/MWh).

    Turning to Andrea Rossi, I thank Chiefio and AlainCo for taking the time to chronicle his progress. Three years ago I labeled him as a “Scam Artist”; he looks much worse today as none of his grandiose predictions materailized.

    Upstream, AlainCo said:
    “……moreover it seems the nickel to copper theory is abandoned by rossi,….”

    The problem with the nickel to copper theory is that it would be easy to find tiny amounts of copper if this reaction was taking place.

  43. Wayne Job says:

    If I suddenly released upon the world a small unit of wonderful power output capable of powering homes or factories. Being my invention or alien technology, my life span would be limited to days, such is our world and such is life. One can only hope that these buggers are not playing games and some thing good can come out of all this, as the green dream of renewable energy is a joke beyond parody.

  44. gallopingcamel says:

    The salts proposed for the LFTR are chemically inert. They don’t “eat” anything. The materials problems relating to the LFTR were related to embrittlement of Hastalloy N exposed to a high neutron flux. The pros and cons of MSRs are discussed here:

    ORNL already “fixed” the Hastalloy N problem and there is every reason to believe that further research would lead to even better materials that would allow operating temperatures to be raised above the present limit of 700 Celsius.

    I don’t claim to be an expert on fission reactor design so I tend to trust people like Kirk Sorensen, David LeBlanc and Charles Barton:

  45. M Simon says:

    The salts proposed for the LFTR are chemically inert.

    Lots of things that are “chemically inert” are not so when exposed to high radiation fluxes.

  46. M Simon says:

    I was reading this section


    And I must say the problems are daunting. As just an idea the design seems attractive. But there are so many details that need to be accounted for and some of them will interact with other details that will need to be accounted for.

  47. gallopingcamel says:

    Every method of generating electric power is fraught with difficulties that sometimes become deadly; nuclear fission is currently the safest way of generating electricity on a large scale.

    Molten Salt Reactors have the promise to be even safer than Generation II NPPs for reasons that are discussed in that wiki you cited.

    If Rossi’s LENR was real it would be even better. You could have a nuclear power plant in your basement without needing a license to operate a high radiation facility! Even so there would be accidents, perhaps even deadly ones.

  48. gallopingcamel says:

    Wayne Job,
    You may be right about the short life expectancy for someone with a groudbreaking invention:
    “….It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic Institute’s Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one thing they really couldn’t stand was a smart-ass.”
    Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (1979)

    The fact that Andea Rossi seems to be remarkably healthy tells you that the “Fat Cats” do not feel threatened by his groundbreaking invention!

  49. omanuel says:


    I am not personally convinced that any nuclear reactors consume “Nuclear Waste,” but I would be happy to be wrong. Can you show me the nuclear reactions that eliminate radioactivity of fission products?

    Breeder reactors, as initially defined, had a reactor core of something like uranium-235 surrounded with some cladding made of material like thorium-232 [1] or uranium-238 [2] that would capture neutrons to make more fissile material.

    1. Th-232 + neutron => Th-233
    Th-233 =(two beta decays)=> U-233

    2. U-238 + neutron => U-238
    U-239 =(two beta decays)=> Pu–239

    U-233 and Pu-239 are fissile fuel for reactors or bombs

    The above reactions are from memory, but I believe they illustrate the operation of breeder reactors.

  50. omanuel says:

    @M. Simon

    Intriguing but misleading news stories about a new fusion reactor that will operate like the Sun have plagued us for decades, and they often began like this one about “A hush-hush” new discovery.

    Until the scientific community starts fitting models to data, instead of data to standard models, I remain highly skeptical.

  51. gallopingcamel says:

    omanuel said, 13 June 2014 at 10:27 pm
    “I am not personally convinced that any nuclear reactors consume “Nuclear Waste,” but I would be happy to be wrong. Can you show me the nuclear reactions that eliminate radioactivity of fission products?”

    Given that there are no MSRs operating in the USA one needs a little ingenuity to carry out the necessary experiments. Charlie Bowman built a wooden ADR (Accelerator Driven Reactor) on his farm in Virginia and it was tested at TUNL (Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory) fourteen years ago.

    TUNL has a van de Graaff accelerator that can deliver a few microamps of protons but the beam energy is too high to promote fission efficiently so a spallation target was used to release neutrons in the heart of a reactor packed with high grade graphite. The graphite thermalized the neutrons and the wooden outer shell (black pine) acted as a neutron mirror owing to the hydrogen contained in the wood.

    The net result of this arrangement was that one energetic proton was converted into up to 30 thermal neutrons, ideal for causing nuclei to fission. Samples of higher Actinides were irradiated in the reactor leading to the conclusion that most long lived elements could be consumed. While I was not a member of the TUNL team I played golf with Edward Bilpuch (now deceased) every week and he gave me a blow by blow account of the work.

    When this TUNL project ran out of funds the reactor was sent to LANL for further tests. After that I lost track of it but then it popped up at Virginia Tech in a collaboration with the ADNA corporation (Charlie Bowman). The GEM*STAR is a descendant of that wooden reactor tested at TUNL fourteen years ago:

    ADRs have shown that “Nuclear Waste” can be consumed. However (IMHO) breeders such as the LFTR will do it more cost effectively.

  52. gallopingcamel says:

    I set up a company called Electro-Photonics selling lasers and streak cameras. Most of my camera customers were engaged in fusion research including inertial confinement.

    Back then (early 1970s) we believed that full scale fusion power plants were 40 years away. Now the optimists are saying 30 years and the pessimists 100+ years

  53. M Simon says:

    gallopingcamel says:
    14 June 2014 at 1:28 am

    If this works – I’d give it 80% odds – I’d say a LOT closer than 30 years.


    I have been involved with Polywell for almost 8 years from the technology end (engineering). All the people I’m aware of think Nick Krall’s excitement is a big thing. You believe that without correct theory engineering can’t be done. But that is not the case. You can design automobiles without reference to relativity. Yes. I know. If your autos are going faster than about .1C there are problems. Still. Polywell is a mass difference and an accelerator problem. We can do that. No matter what the source of the mass difference is.

  54. M Simon says:


    How would your theory change the design? If it wouldn’t then your theory is not essential to solve the problems.

  55. omanuel says:

    @ gallopingcamel (14 June 2014 at 1:17 am)

    I am convinced nuclear reactors cannot consume “Nuclear Waste” (radioactive waste products).

    We could, and should, rename “Nuclear Waste” (radioactive waste products) as concentrated energy sources to be encapsulated and used as heat sources rather than buried underground.

    @ M Simon (16 June 2014 at 2:40 pm)

    David Evans correctly notes “The carbon dioxide theory is clearly inadequate.” There is no advantage in a new solar model based on Earth’s temperature that ignores pages (pp. 19-27) of precise experimental data that show that the core of the Sun is a pulsar, as Peter Toth suggested in 1977 [1] soon after the results of meteorite analysis revealed that the Sun:

    1. Made our elements [2]
    2. Birthed the solar system 5 Ga ago
    3. Sustained the origin and evolution of life after 3.5 Ga ago
    4. Still maintains contact with every atom, life and world in the solar system today.


    1. Peter Toth, “Is the Sun a pulsar?” Nature 270, 159-160 (10 November 1977)
    2. O.K. Manuel and D.D. Sabu, “Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle,” Science 195, 208-209 (14 January 1977)

  56. M Simon says:

    There is no advantage in a new solar model

    It is not a new solar model. It is a model of how the Earth reacts to the Sun’s output.

  57. omanuel says:

    @ M. Simon

    Thanks for the clarification. The post itself suggested a return to the pre-1543 discovery Earth orbits the Sun:

    “The initial aim of this project is to answer this question: If the recent global warming was associated almost entirely with solar radiation, and had no dependence on CO2, what solar model would account for it?

    Let’s build that solar model

  58. omanuel says:

    JoNova and David Evans are in the process of discovering Earth’s climate is driven by the Sun’s deep-seated magnetic fields (and the X Force) that arise from the Sun’s compact innards (Fe-mantle or pulsar core).


    That was also the conclusion of the paper Professors Barry Ninham, Stig Friberg and I published in the Journal of Fusion Energy in 2002.

  59. omanuel says:

    “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002). http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/ http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf

  60. philjourdan says:

    @M. Simon – She is up to part 4! It is getting better – at least it is making more sense the more David Evans posts.

  61. Matthew R Marler says:

    I appreciate occasional updates on this work. About this: It makes it look like 2014 is likely to be the year of “fish or cut bait” for Cold Fusion / Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

    I doubt it. By this time next year there will be more publications of successful tests, but no device generating useful heat or electricity beyond the electricity used in start-up.

    The most credible claim is about the Polywell device, and they are not promising much energy generation any time soon.

    It has long been known that the Pons-Fleischman devices occasionally have excess measured heat and occasionally have excess measured radiation. The explanation most consistent with all of the evidence is randomness in operating and measuring the devices. Nothing operates without random variation, and with P-F the evidence is that random variation on a small scale is all they produce.

    I bookmarked the page, and I shall stop in next year for another update. I first began reading about Rossi and LENR (by those initials) some years ago, and the annual updates are always about the same.

  62. OM,
    Too bad I can’t convince you that Gen IV reactors can consume “Nuclear waste”. I did not have much luck with the good folks at Deltoid either:

  63. omanuel says:


    I believe:

    1. We will learn how to safely harness and use nuclear energy.

    2. We mistakenly used nuclear energy in the past without knowing what we would do with the radioactive waste.

    3. I would be happy to evaluate the feasibility of nuclear reactions that convert the two radioactive products from fission of uranium into stable atoms.

    4. It would be a big mistake to deceive the public again about the safety of nuclear energy.

    5. A step toward nuclear credibility and sanity would be admission that:
    _ a) Aston’s nuclear packing fraction tells nuclear stability; Weizsacker’s nuclear binding energy is misleading.
    _ b) Neutron repulsion is the source of energy in cores of heavy nuclei, stars, some planets, and galaxies.

    6. Consensus scientists who refuse to correct false information in standard models merit no more blind trust.

  64. crosspatch says:

    I see a lot of paper flying around with this tech but so far not one actual practical ongoing demonstration of it. Not even have I seen a refrigerator sized unit running in some university research lab for a year or two. I see a lot of magazine and newspaper articles, occasional word of “deals” here and there, a LOT of articles about why people and/or governments should pump their money into it but actual tangible output — zippity. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. It’s always “just around the corner”. Testing always never is done completely in the open. Something’s always hidden. It’s like the Houdini power source. Did Houdini ever work for Barnum?

    What I am going to do is close my eyes to the words on paper (or screen, as the case may be) and wait until there is an actual operating example somewhere (and not a brief test) before I come to any conclusions. So far there has always been a reason why they haven’t been able to do it and I am not at all convinced that the tech is any “farther along” in a physical sense than it ever was.

  65. M Simon says:

    philjourdan says:
    17 June 2014 at 12:33 pm

    @M. Simon – She is up to part 4! It is getting better – at least it is making more sense the more David Evans posts.

    Yes. Part IV for those not following along. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-iv-a-huge-leap-understanding-the-mysterious-11-year-solar-delay/

    And V http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-v-escaping-heat-the-three-pipes-theory-and-the-rats-multiplier/

  66. omanuel says:


    World leaders purposefully deceived the public about the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms for sixty-nine years (2014 – 1945 = 69 yrs).

    They avoided nuclear war, destroyed the integrity of government science and constitutional constraints on governments.

    Nuclear energy can be used AFTER

    1. Full disclosure of unreported events in August. 1945 [e.g., Stalin’s capture of Japan’s atomic bomb production plant in Konan, Korea], and

    2. Removal of misinformation and restoration of empirical facts [neutron repulsion as a major source of energy and Aston’s nuclear packing fraction] in physics textbooks.

  67. p.g.sharrow says:

    @omanual; Neutron repulsion doesn’t appear to me to be the key to nuclear energy. I would say the key thing is the electron shell that forms around the proton as a charge force field. The change in size of that charge field at the speed of light is the key event that liberates energy as EMF or Gama Radiation. That charge field as a neutron’s surface allows the proton cored neutron to cozy up to a naked proton that would reject a proton neighbor. That charge field causes neutrons to repulse other neutrons as neighbors. Only a neutron / proton pair or actually a 2 pair is stable. Lindo Daddi published a paper in the mid 1980s of his idea of an idealized atomic structure creation, Most elegant! A 4 point / 4 side tight construct of fields that created stable isotopes, Too many extra neutrons weaken the energy ties that hold the nucleus together. A chain reaction causes the release of the extra neutrons that revert into hydrogen and a storm of energy released. I hope you can find that Daddi paper. It would be a good anchor point to a new atomic energy view point. He has also begun to accept the possibility of neutron creation as well as decay. Another retired old physicist that no longer has to spout the standard model gibberish to protect his job and reputation. pg

  68. M Simon says:

    p.g.sharrow says:
    20 June 2014 at 5:16 am

    I think there is quite a bit of merit to your point of view about the neutron. We know that neutrons in the wild have about a 15 minute half life and the decay is n –> (p+) + (e-) + energy. It fits what we know about neutron behavior and nuclear magic numbers and gives a deeper understanding.

    BTW a quick search for Lindo Daddi has turned up nothing of significance.

  69. gallopingcamel says:

    omanuel said, 18 June 2014 at 2:56 am
    “3. I would be happy to evaluate the feasibility of nuclear reactions that convert the two radioactive products from fission of uranium into stable atoms.”

    The fission products are not the major problem as they don’t require geologic storage. The “Yucca Mountain” idea was a response to the “Higher Actinides” in spent fuel that remain dangerously radioactive for 10,000 years or more.

    While the ability of Gen IV to burn what we wrongly call “Nuclear Waste” is a major consideration it is not the main reason for phasing them in as soon as possible. I consider quantitative arguments more compelling than qualitative ones so here is a simple table to make my point. Consider the fuel consumed by a 1 GWe (standard candle?) Nuclear Power Plant in one year:

    NPP………………… Fuel………………..”Waste”
    Gen I & II………..150.000…………….149.999 tonnes
    LFTR……………….1.000…………………0.060 tonnes

    Gen IV reactors have the potential to reduce fuel consumption by >100 times and “Nuclear Waste” production by 2500 times.

  70. omanuel says:

    @p.g.sharrow These details are important:

    1. Three basic nuclear interactions [1-3]:
    _ a.) Strong attractive force of neutrons for protons
    _ b.) Strong repulsive force between two neutrons
    _ c.) Stronger repulsive force between two protons includes Coulomb repulsion

    2.. Cause the nuclear structure below ~150 amu to be unlike that above ~150 amu
    BELOW ~150 amu: The core is neutron-proton pairs; Extra neutrons are on the surface
    ABOVE ~150 amu: The core is neutrons; Neutron-proton pairs are on the surface

    Therefore neutron repulsion is important in cores of atoms. planets, stars and galaxies that are heavier than ~150 amu (atomic mass units).

    3. Major error in nuclear physics textbooks after WWII hid neutron repulsion:

    BEFORE 1945:
    Aston’s nuclear packing fraction correctly showed nuclear stability
    _ a.) Revealed neutron repulsion in neutron-rich nuclei
    _ b.) Revealed proton repulsion and Coulomb repulsion in proton-rich nuclei

    AFTER 1945:
    von Weizsacker’s nuclear binding energy distorted nuclear stability
    _ a.) Neutron-rich nuclei appeared more stable than they actually were
    _ b.) Proton-rich nuclei appeared less stable than they actually were

    1. “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy” Journal of Fusion Energy 19 93-98 (2001): http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

    2. “Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity,” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252, 3-7 (2002): http://www.springerlink.com/content/kg8emwb74ak3lyrc/

    3. “Neutron repulsion confirmed as an energy source,” Journal of Fusion Energy 20 197-201 (2002): http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1n87370x6685079/ or http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf

  71. omanuel says:

    “Neutron repulsion doesn’t appear to me to be the key to nuclear energy.”

    The key to the DOMINANT form of nuclear energy changes as mass increases:

    1. For A ~150 amu, the REPULSIVE force between protons leaves a core of neutrons with a surface of neutron-proton pairs.

    3. For A > ~230 amu, the REPULSIVE force between neutrons in the core may cause spontaneous fission.

    4. For A > ~300 amu the probability of spontaneous fission may become dominant.

    1′. For A ~150 amu, the nuclear surface may emit alpha particles (He-4 nuclei).

    3′. For A > 209 amu, all nuclei are radioactive and decay away.

    4′. For A >> 300 amu (neutron-rich cores of some planets, stars and galaxies), neutron-emission and/or fission are dominant decay modes.

  72. omanuel says:

    This is a replacement for the above, incomplete post from a cell phone:

    “Neutron repulsion doesn’t appear to me to be the key to nuclear energy.”

    The key to the DOMINANT form of nuclear energy changes as mass increases:

    1. For A ~ 150 amu, the REPULSIVE force between protons leaves a core of neutrons, with a surface of neutron-proton pairs.

    3. For A > ~230 amu, the REPULSIVE force between neutrons in the core may cause spontaneous fission.

    4. For A > ~300 amu the probability of spontaneous fission may become dominant.

    1′. For A ~ 150 amu, the nuclear surface may emit alpha particles (He-4 nuclei).

    3′. For A > 209 amu, all nuclei are radioactive and decay away (some slowly).

    4′. For A >> 300 amu (neutron-rich cores of some planets, stars and galaxies), neutron-emission and/or fission are dominant decay modes.

  73. omanuel says:

    Sorry, the errors repeated themselves. I will try again to publish as a pdf file.

  74. omanuel says:

    Here’s a link to ‘Nuclear_Forces_and_Physical_Structure.pdf’ in my Dropbox:


  75. p.g.sharrow says:

    @omanuel; Thank you for your effort. I was unaware of the changes in structure distribution of neutron / protons the atomic nucleus as it’s size increases. That would explain the fragility of the heaver atoms as well as the dumbbell shape that progresses as the isotopes get larger. I did capture your pdf. thanks again, pg

    @MSimon Daddi was a physics professor at the Italian Navel Academy at Bologna, and retired a couple of years ago,IIRC. He now sometimes posts and comments at:
    He has taken an interest in LENR since F&P days. pg

  76. M Simon says:


    I have been reading your stuff for years and although I’m not derisive of your work it never clicked until now.

    If you would start out your exposition of your ideas with n –> (p+) + (e-) + energy — 15 min half life — and explain how your work derives from that I think you would get a LOT better reception.

    The thinking up ’til now is that the neutron is a neutral particle and it has a virtual electron inside. Now if the electron is real and rotates around the “surface” the + charge is only partially and temporally canceled. An estimate of how close the electron is to the proton should be possible from the binding energy. I’m not up to the math. But that should be given right next to: n –> (p+) + (e-) + energy — 15 min half life.

    IIRC (it has been 50 years – 1964) in Naval Nuke School we got taught both von Weizsacker and Aston. But von Weizsacker was used for calculations. The numbers seemed to work well enough to design plants and bombs.

    Which just goes to show that you don’t need the right theory to design things. Just a good enough theory. Design margin will take care of the rest. That is another obstacle you will have to overcome.

  77. M Simon says:

    And is is possible that von Weizsacker was promulgated because it makes bomb designs fizzle if not done perfectly? It would only take 1% to make a big difference and the error – if not rigorously investigated – might not be noticed.

    If that was the case you ought to be kinder to them OM.

  78. omanuel says:

    p.g.sharrow and M. Simon,

    Thank you for the valuable feedback.

    Chapter 3 of my biography (probably the last chapter since there is no need to repeat the literature) will be entitled Nuclear Forces and Physical Structure.

    Communications is the missing link in my evolution. Your feedback has been extremely valuable in figuring out how to communicate.

    Yes, Hitler might have felt justified in assassinating von Weizsacker for treason if he knew that the error in his model of nuclear binding energy cost Hitler victory in WWII.

    The key message for the public is the identity of the world leader who knew how to take totalitarian control of the public in the CHAOS and FEAR of Aug 1945 in order to save themselves and the entire world from the fate Aston warned about in the last paragraph of his 1922 Nobel Lecture.

    Again, thanks for extremely valuable feedback. Oliver

  79. M Simon says:


    Some more evidence. When starting a new pile we never went by the expected rod position for criticality. There was a long slow start (unless a hot restart was done – only allowed on military ships because of its danger – I was involved in one – in a war zone.) to find the exact position of criticality. And then a very slow warm up of the reactor.

    Restarting from a cold shutdown was done the same way.

  80. p.g.sharrow says:

    This new fangled toy, “The InterNet” is quite a blessing to us “Old Farts” that are used to working in isolation. The net that covers the world is the future of mankind. The controlling Elite no longer have control of information shareing. pg

  81. p.g.sharrow says:

    @M Simon, were you on the Enterprise when she went to battle stations in the Gulf of Tonkin in 65? impressive speed boat!!! pg

  82. omanuel says:

    I should have provided this link to the invasion of Manchuria and Korea by Stalin’s USSR troops in August 1945:


  83. Steve C says:

    @p.g. (2:08) – As a fellow “Old Fart” I pretty much agree with you. OTOH, all the hardware ‘twixt thee and me is owned and run by big corporations, which can do pretty much what they want (or as directed by the local Gov’t) with it. At my end, the actual PC and its wireless dongle are mine, everything else is The Man’s – it can disappear as easily as the AC mains, as well as with the AC mains. (Ah, such “fun” we had in the 70s, when the UK’s electricity supplies became a little … “sporting”. And them days’ll be back …)

    I’d be an awful lot happier if a good deal more of the kit inbetween us were “off-grid”, both for energy supplies and service management (and navigated by something Tor-like, and, and – but all the hardware has to be up and running first). Bits like the thousands of miles of undersea cable are going to be a bit hard to “route round” on an informal basis, though. ;-)

  84. J Martin says:

    Perhaps von Weizsacker’s ‘error’ was deliberate ?

  85. M Simon says:

    @M Simon, were you on the Enterprise when she went to battle stations in the Gulf of Tonkin in 65? impressive speed boat!!! pg

    I was on the Bainbridge in ’66 – Gulf of Tonkin. I could see the Big E any day and watch the plane ops most mornings. Well at least on calm days. We rode through a couple of typhoons (the edges. – I estimate wave height of 8 to 12 ft. – didn’t go on deck to check).

  86. omanuel says:

    @ J Martin “Perhaps von Weizsacker’s ‘error’ was deliberate ?”

    Perhaps. Two post-1945 changes in nuclear textbooks seem deliberately deceptive:

    1. Aston’s rigorously valid concept of nuclear packing fraction was deleted.

    2. Decay energies of the neutron and tritium were selective left off plots of beta-decay energies of mirror image nuclei in nuclear textbooks.

    Having said that, we need to let go of blame and work together to restore integrity to science, ASAP.

    Nobody is to blame. If you and I and others had been the leaders of the USA, USSR and China in August 1945, our survival instinct and our FEAR of nuclear annihilation might also have convinced us to “save the world” by taking totalitarian control of mankind.

  87. R. de Haan says:

    Obviously the fear for nuclear annihilation gas dissipated.
    Not among the sane people but among the totally stupid US governmental establishment who are seriously considering and pushing for nuclear war.

  88. philjourdan says:

    @M. Simon – A friend of mine served on the Iowa – and had pictures of it going through a typhoon. And some of waves were breaking over the deck! Awesome pictures.

  89. omanuel says:

    @ R. de Haan The information you posted confirms the need to “let go of blame and work together to restore integrity to science, ASAP.

    Skeptics won the AGW debate. Believers and generators of AGW propaganda retain essentially all of the political power and are far more dangerous now than they were in late November 2009 when Climategate emails exposed the first public hint of lock-step totalitarian government science that had grown out-of-sight for sixty-four years (2009 – 1945 = 64 yrs) in federal research funds.

    Again, skeptics won the AGW debate and trapped government scientists and their paymasters in a well-documented web of deceit, . . . with no face-saving escape.

    We will win the battle and lose the war if we fail to forgive those who – driven by FEAR and the instinct of survival in August 1945 – deceived the public and took totalitarian worldwide control of society !

  90. p.g.sharrow says:

    @omanual; THEY still are in control and continue their Manipulations. It is not the time for forgiveness. pg

  91. omanuel says:


    Skeptics have cornered a dangerous animal that may attack unless there is an escape route.

    See Tallbloke note on Putin’s strange bedmates:


  92. R. de Haan says:

    Omanuel, with all due respect but I think you’re day dreaming.
    The skeptics won the debate within their own corner of the world wide web and some government back rooms. But in the public domain, at least in Europe and the USA, the corrupt manipulating war mongers continue to control and fleece the man in the street and there is no one to stop them, let alone hold them responsible for “screwing the science”.

    Really, I just looked out off the window and the streets were empty.

    I’m afraid we have to wait for the economic depression deepen, sending another 100 million people out of a job and the introduction of the Green Gestapo telling people to pay their eco taxes, scrap their car, to stop eating fish and meat and take a shower only once every two weeks.

    Now maybe that will wake up society and trigger some action.

    For now everything is quiet on the front and those people already paying through their noses are in a deep sleep.

  93. R. de Haan says:

    As for the Russian link in regard to the environmental madness in the West.

    The Russians have been sponsoring the anti nuclear movement which gave birth to the German Green party. But that was before the Wall came down.

    Obviously the appratchiks of the EU want the Wall back again but this time on Russian territory.

    I don’t think Russia is so stupid to rely on China for their oil and gas and I also doubt Russia will undertake any action to promote a ban on fracking anywhere in the world.

    Even in Europe some sanity about this subject is reaching the public domain and just like Gazprom is now investing in Western power companies they will also take a profitable position in any fracking operation in Europe.

    We have oil and gas coming out of our noses for the next centuries so the only real problem are the war mongers and the nut cases in Washington and Brussels.

    All we need to do is combine a mass protest of bus and truck drivers and combine that with all the pensioners who were standing in front of the line to be fleeced.

    This way you combine transportation capacity with huge numbers of people.

    Nothing more frightening for the establishment than a bunch of granny’s swaying their walking sticks in anger.

    Just send 20 million of them to Washington.

    They have nothing to loose and neither do we.

  94. M Simon says:

    so the only real problem are the war mongers and the nut cases in Washington and Brussels.

    Nations are motorcycle gangs. Gangs are always calculating the cost/benefit of a war. We would be a LOT better off if every human was a fierce warmonger. There would be a LOT fewer wars.

    Peacemongery induces war – “they are worms – they will not fight”.

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

    And it doesn’t hurt to pick on some bystander from time to prove that your preparations are not just for show. Sucks? Yep. Reality is like that.


    To shorten wars you have to show the olive branch before your enemy is totally defeated. OM is correct.

  95. R. de Haan says:

    M Simon says:
    24 June 2014 at 10:10 pm

    so the only real problem are the war mongers and the nut cases in Washington and Brussels.

    M. Simon, although i a gree with your view I fail to see any “olive branch moment”.

    The “Blue Planet Green Shackles” Agenda is on track, the media have been bought and paid for, the gravy train continues to run on ever increasing budgets, corruption is on the loose and political correctness suppresses any public debate.

    Any opposing skeptic of standing who opens his mouth loses his position.

    Thanks to the bio fuel mandate and a lunatic foreign policy of “Regime Change” the Middle East, North, West and East Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have arrived at the edge.
    The same level of opportunistic lunacy has backfired in Ukraine and now Russia has been put on the calender.

    Yes, it’s that bad.

    I personally think tar and feathers provide a more appropriate message to the current political establishment.

    In the mean time we have another promising battery project blessing us with a groundbreaking 1.100 miles range per charge but….. there are some little problems to be solved.


  96. omanuel says:

    My interpretation of history is based on a 2-page summary of unreported CHAOS & FEAR of nuclear annihilation in late August 1945:


    1. Stalin used “junk science” to control the public in the rise of communism before WWII.

    2. Stalin convinced world leaders to use “junk science” after WWII to “save the world from nuclear annihilation.”

    3. Climategate emails revealed this lock-step, totalitarian control over government science in late Nov 2009.

    4. Official responses from leaders of the scientific community, including the national academies of sciences, show their involvement in deception.

    5. Skeptics won the AGW debate; AGW believers and their powerful political backers lost credibility.

    Skeptics might acknowledge that world leaders had valid reason to believe Earth could be transformed into a star by uncontrolled release of nuclear energy in August 1945.

    This “olive branch” might be the win-win solution that averts violence.

    Proof of CHAOS in August 1945 was documented by this 2002 BBC news report that secret A-bomb plans went missing for the next fifty-seven years:


  97. @ R, de Haan re demonstrations. How about this?
    Old Fat Naked Women for Peace https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OINStsPwgQ4

  98. R. de Haan says:

    Ken McMurtrie says:
    25 June 2014 at 6:00 am

    @ R, de Haan re demonstrations. How about this?
    Old Fat Naked Women for Peace https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OINStsPwgQ4

    Hello Ken, I only watched the beginning of the video.
    As far as I can see they’re not old, fat or naked enough (LOL).

    Youtube is becoming a digital junk yard of our civlization and in 2017 some MIT students want to junk Mars sending a cube carrying millions of “selfies” to “create history and “push forward humanity: http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/24/5838024/earth-bombard-mars-videos-messages-time-capsule-2017

    Isn’t it great?

  99. M Simon says:

    R. de Haan says:
    25 June 2014 at 2:11 am

    But think of the power in “When you surrender we will chalk it up to fear and give you a pass. But surrender must come first.”

    Best to get it on the table early so it is taken seriously when the time comes. .ie. it is not just a ploy born of the moment.

  100. R. de Haan says:

    @ M Simon
    In times like this where the establishment is lying between it’s teethe about…. anything, squandering trillions of dollars all in the name of executing an “Agenda” aimed to role back modern society (UN Agenda 21) and world population http://green-agenda.com IMO there is absolutely no basis for any of those considerations. From NSA to EPA, from Foreign Policy to Wall Street eradicating the Middle Class while robbing us blind. IMO we are at war but it takes time for people to be confronted with the ultimate consequences of the set policies and connect the dots. The real struggle still has to take place and against that time the entire cmate change scam will have been long forgotten.

    That’s how it goes.

    Just take the latest from WUWT about Holdren.

    Tar and feathers anyone?

  101. omanuel says:

    @M. Simon

    You said it well. The dragon has been defeated but will not, and need not, be humiliated.

    Reconciliation is in the best interest of everyone.


  102. omanuel says:

    @R. de Haan,

    I share your sense of outrage over Holdren’s actions.

    He is, however, only another puppet in the very long line of politicians that chose life over possible annihilation of the planet in August 1945 and justified the decision with an egocentric chant:

    “Better Red Than Dead!”

    Our response now should not be based on selfish emotions.

  103. R. de Haan says:

    @Omanuel, besides a few publications the blogshere and an alternative climate meeting in Las Vegas, nothing is going on here.
    That’s the point I want to make.

  104. R. de Haan says:

    And BS like this printend and distributed by the NYT: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-14/new-york-times-says-lack-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth

    Besides that I simply don’t understand your remark about “selfish emotions”.

    Simply don’t.

  105. M Simon says:

    R. de Haan says:
    25 June 2014 at 8:24 pm

    May I suggest reading “Strategy” by B H L Hart?

    You are confusing strategy with tactics. And unlike a chess player you are not thinking 6 or 8 moves ahead.

    Your take on the current situation is correct. But the tide has turned. That will change the dynamics 3 or 4 moves ahead. Plan accordingly.

  106. M Simon says:

    Let me have a go:

    Selfish emotions is the desire for retribution vs the desire for peace.

  107. R. de Haan says:

    You’re barking up the wrong tree here.
    Have a talk with these guy’s: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/06/25/intel-official-americans-have-joined-militant-group-isis/

  108. p.g.sharrow says:

    Do not mistake the fact we have only blunted their attack, skeptics have not won the argument with the Ecoloon crowd. They still believe they are winning. They control access to the Main Stream Media, they control Education and most Bureaucracies. They believe just a little more effort they will win the political argument. Only the “Heavily Financed” and “Well Organized” skeptic blogs is causing this delay!

    The One World Government crowd have pushed for this for over 200 years, they will not go peacefully. We don’t need a self appointed crowd of Elites to direct the lives of all of humanity. We can rule our own lives. pg

  109. omanuel says:

    @p.g. sharrow

    You are right, “skeptics have not won the argument with the Ecoloon crowd.”

    We don’t need to. That crowd is led by propaganda artists and are incapable of independent rational thought.

    But the leaders of both sides know the inevitable conclusion.

    Nine pages of precise data on pages 19-27 of my autobiography FALSIFY Standard, Post-1945 Models of:

    1. The nucleus
    2. Ordinary stars
    3. Ordinary galaxies
    4. The expanding cosmos !

    We know why neutron repulsion was hidden from the public after 1945.

    Puppet scientists of world leaders know they hid or avoided such data for decades. The data are unyielding. Puppet scientists are trapped like rats on a sinking ship.

    They are hopelessly trapped but dangerous; Perhaps receptive to a face-saving “olive branch” offer.

  110. R. de Haan says:

    “The Gap Between Those With Money & Those With Knowledge Has Grown Catastrophic”

  111. R. de Haan says:

    Global Governance, fighting off NGO’s:

  112. R. de Haan says:

    @Omanuel: “They are hopelessly trapped but dangerous; Perhaps receptive to a face-saving “olive branch” offer.”


    Let’s play the devil’s advocate and have a look at one of those “hopelessly trapped Puppet Scientits”.

    Take Mr. Michael E. Mann: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

    Responsible for the infamous Hockey Stick Graph, long debunked but recycled in an endless loop of publications and supportive institutions from the IPCC to once impeccable scientific institutions like the KNMI, NOAA, etc, and a buck load of University’s.
    Mann, currently engaged in a second legal suit which he started against Mark Steyn, National Review, Rand Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    Now over two years in the trial Steyn has insisted to have Mann and his Hockey Stick theory on trial as he claims: “I want to get to court as soon as possible, and put Michael E Mann, PhD (Doctor of Phraudology) on the stand under oath. I haven’t wasted two years on this guy to be denied my moment in court. That’s one reason I’ve countersued Mann. He thinks the DC Superior Court is competent to litigate his fraudulent “hockey stick”. Fine, let’s get it to a jury – before the sclerotic DC “justice” system’s procedural delays go on as long as the global-warming “pause”.

    If Steyn is going to win this lawsuit based to the “Pause in Global Warming” is the big question because over the past few months Obama has put Climate Change on top of his agenda again and the the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) presented a new graph which has taken the shape of, you only can guess once, a….hockey stick.

    We all know Obama has been lying between his teeth and the USHCN graph is 100% fraud but the question is does the “independent jury” know and will the judge take the risk burning his fingers on a polical doctrine?

    If as you claim the skeptics have won the “debate”, they haven’t won the propaganda war and they haven’t had any notable influence on the political process in the USA and Europe.

    On the contrary.

    In Europe hundreds of billions spend on renewable energy has hiked energy prices by 400% with horrendous economic consequences and as matters look right now the USA is going to follow the path of the “Lemming” and following suit.

    It is my prediction that the fall out of the political policies since 9/11 will trigger a massive economic depression on a Global scale resulting in further chaos and war.

    In the US and Europe Governments have turned against the interests of their own populations and when the dust settles people will have total different problems on their mind leaving the Climate Change doctrine and the” olive branches” collecting dust.

  113. R. de Haan says:

    Just for the record:

    It has been claimed that the National Debt of the USA has reached an unsustainable number of 60 trillion USD. The horror.
    Only the German Bank however has a total sum of liabilities of 67 trillion USD.
    And this isn’t the only bank or sector drowning in debt.

    Fact is that from a financial and economic point of view we are living on borrowed time.

    After the train as hit the wall, an inevitable event from my point of view, we end up with an economy unable to support the current numbers of people which exactly is the plan behind UN Agenda 21.

    IMO we shouldn’t focus on offering olive branches to the scam artists at this moment in time because there is absolutely no basis to do so and there is absolutely now way we can stop the events currently underway.

    Instead we should worry if anybody with knowledge of the Climate Change Scam will be alive when the day of reckoning comes.

    In fact I think we will be lucky bastards if, after the dust settles, we can find an olive branch at all (LOL)

    And this is the view from a born optimist.

  114. R. de Haan says:

    Just like this born optimist: https://www.youtube.com/user/gcelente

  115. Steve C says:

    @R. de Haan – To go with your link above to Delingpole’s Breitbart article, may I add a recent essay by John Brignell on Numberwatch, called “March of the Zealots”. Quote, from the beginning:

    “Every age has its dominant caste. This is the age of the zealot. Twenty years ago they were dismissed as cranks and fanatics, but now they are licensed to interfere in the every day lives of ordinary people to an unprecedented degree. When Bernard Levin first identified the new phenomenon of the SIFs (Single Issue Fanatics) many of us thought it was a bit of a joke or at most an annoyance. Now the joke is on us. In that short time they have progressed from being an ignorable nuisance to what is effectively a branch of government. They initiate legislation and prescribe taxation. They form a large and amorphous collection of groups of overlapping membership, united and defined by the objects of their hatred (industry, tobacco, alcohol, adiposity, carbon, meat, salt, chemicals in general, radio waves, field sports etc.) Their success in such a short time has been one of the most remarkable phenomena in the whole of human history.”

    Not a pleasant read, but recommended nonetheless.

  116. Steve C says:

    Eek. First I screw up the link, then copying’n’pasting straight from a pdf screws up the formatting. I blame the fact that society is collapsing (or should that read “being collapsed”) around me. ;-)

    [Reply: Fixed. -EMS. So propping up against the collapse for just a bit longer ;-) ]

  117. omanuel says:

    Belated reply to M. Simon 21 June 2014 at 10:28 am

    Thanks for your comment on the importance of considering:

    a.) The neutron as a (e-, p+) pair in close combination, as Chadwick originally described it in 1932, or

    b.) The H-atom as an expanded form of the neutron, as the Bhagavad Gita described the other form of God that together comprise the entire cosmos [Eknath Easwaran, Bhagavad Gita for Daily Living, Volume 2: Like a Thousand Suns (Nilgiri Press, 1979, 456 pp) page 11]

    Information on this and spontaneous neutron decay to an expanded (e-, p+) pair (The H-atom) may help readers understand that neutron generators are therefore generators of hydrogen.

    I will try to incorporate these ideas in Chapter 3 on “Nuclear Forces; Physical Size and Structure.”

    Again, thanks for the suggestion.

  118. M Simon says:

    omanuel says:
    26 June 2014 at 5:22 pm

    When you post in forums be sure to start out with – “The neutron as a (e-, p+) pair” etc.

    Without that key what you say comes off as the ravings of a brilliant man gone off the rails. A not unknown phenomenon.

  119. M Simon says:

    Fact is that from a financial and economic point of view we are living on borrowed time.

    I doubt it. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/low-cost-fusion-project-steps-out-shadows-looks-money-n130661

    As to financial? Properly it is an accounting problem. Accounting problems are not the end of civilization. A reordering? To be sure. But the end? Hardly. Some adjustments will need to be made. Production capacity will be there tomorrow if all the money in the world was burned. New systems would evolve.

    Short version: the Malthusians are wrong.

  120. M Simon says:

    Besides: I’m pitching in to create the future I want. http://spacetimepro.blogspot.com/

  121. M Simon says:

    In fact I think we will be lucky bastards if, after the dust settles, we can find an olive branch at all (LOL)

    A converted enemy is more useful than a dead one. You convert with olive branches.

    Zealotry is going out of fashion.

  122. p.g.sharrow says:

    Do not mistake my Olivebranch for a white flag, I also carry a bag of spears and sword. pg

  123. R. de Haan says:


    Thanks for the fusion, the spacetimepro link and your view on engineering.
    I support your claim that Malthusians are wrong.
    However the economic and financial crises is going to bite.
    No doubt about that.

    A lot of people are going to lose their pensions and their savings and a lot of good businesses will go down the drain simply because the banks pull the plug and bills are no longer paid.

    At this moment in the Netherlands, healthy businesses with a great customer base, specialized staff and a fully booked export portfolio no longer get the credit they need to continue their business.

    A dentist with a great practice making money like water doesn’t get a mortgage on a new building he needs to serve his growing patient base and realize his views for a full service practice that offers additiolnal implant services and a dental lab, this despite the fact that the rent for his current location is 20.000 euro per year.

    Two friends of mine who run a company that became a certified contractor with Airbus received a letter that their contract was pulled because Airbus changed it’s policy only accepting contract partners that made a 100 million + annual turnover. This is EU policy as well.

    Although the examples I mentioned above have been limited to the Netherlands we have similar examples in other EU countries including Germany.

    Jobs vaporize and the Middle class disappears..

    What we see here is a structural undermining of the fabric of society with absolutely devastating consequences because the Middle Class should be the biggest job engine in our economies.

    The devastating effects of the bail outs in Southern Europe, the increasing debt and state deficits resulting in unbearable austerity measures already have destroyed their economies and thanks to the Euro currency they will remain in limbo for a long time to come.

    Of course this situation perfectly fits the objectives written down in UN Agenda 21 which is directed at eliminating the consumer society. for the masses.

    Not Maltusian but a more or less planned roll back of civilization.

  124. M Simon says:

    Do not mistake my Olivebranch for a white flag, I also carry a bag of spears and sword.


    R. de Haan says:
    27 June 2014 at 8:08 am

    Banks are not lending. This is a good indication that they expect a general collapse. Of course the thought is father to the deed and the loop is self reenforcing. Just as it is when the prospects look good. It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy.

    The conspiracy is the central bankers – who prevented a monetary collapse at the cost of not clearing the decks/harvesting the dead wood.

    One of the things you need to keep in mind is that society/market can’t function without interstitials. Middle men.

    What do I think of the men running the show in the West? They are bad people but not inherently evil (think Stalin/Mao for the evil category). They definitely have a lust for power. They don’t have a taste for mass murder. And that is why the olive branch.

    You have to consider that their dreams of control – so close you can taste it – are failing. This will lead to a fair amount of disorder. We have too much stuff for a collapse. And too many ways to route around damage. IMO.

  125. omanuel says:


    1. Lay “olive branch on the table:” Forgiveness follows full disclosure.

    [“Olive branch, not a white flag!]

    2. Help reporters find details on the CHAOS in late August 1945 that released atomic bomb plans from government control for fifty-seven years (1945-2002):


    3. Check validity of new disclosures against the few scant earlier reports:


    4. Skeptics and government scientists work together to restore integrity to science.

  126. vukcevic says:

    Hi Mr. Smith
    You are known as the expert on the tides I’ll have to go back to your main article on the subject, but for the moment I have a short question :
    Wikipedia: article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_month
    lists 5 different numbers for the lunar month Odd one out is the synodic month quoted as ~29.53, while the other four are all with periods closely spaced between 27.2 and 27.55 days
    How do you rate significance of the synodic month’s period in relations to ‘climate change’ compared to any of the rest?

  127. p.g.sharrow says:

    I remember “Old Timers” telling me of the financials that created the”Great Depression” after the election of FDR. The government was way over extended and the banks were full of money. FDR took all the Gold to back the government and closed the banks to consolidate control of the money. Businesses and farmers that were doing well and had money in the bank, were bankrupted because their loans were called due and their money was lost to the banks creditors and the Reserve. If you have money in a bank that would cover any loans from that bank you were in trouble because the bank had debts that had to be paid with your money and your loan collateral.
    Today the financial system and governments are too over extended to ever be able to cover their debits. Only massive inflation or repudiation or both will cover this. People on the street have no free money and the reserve banks are full. But full of what? just numbers. Not real wealth. Real wealth has been squandered by 50 years of giverment largess. They have spent and promised everything created and will be created for the next 50 years. The reason crazy old ladies hid their money in their mattress was they knew that in the end, Banks and government officials will steal any money that they can get their hands
    A Democratic socialist Government turned a bad recession into the the “Great Depression” by massive take over of wealth and regulation of wealth creation because the Elites believed that only they could manage everyone and everything.
    We don’t need them!
    If allowed, people will create more wealth then they need. Just cut down the government drones that get in the way and parasitize on the wealth creators. Government agencies always grow until they destroy the activity that they control. ALWAYS, it is their nature. They MUST have total control. The process is more important then the outcome. Now we have government science that changes the facts to suit the politically needed theories. Now we have the NASA that can’t get into space because they are occupied with doing PC busy work and junk science. Farmers can’t farm without massive intrusion by government bureaucrats. Nothing is immune from the demands of the Bureaucratic Elites. We don’t need them! pg

  128. Gee! I feel I’ve learned so much just from reading all these comments for the last hour. Am especially interested in Oliver Manuel’s research and comments here. It seems I learned quite some years ago that the Sun was mostly Iron. Then somewhere along the line was told, along with everyone else that The energy was Hydrogen fusing into Helium at a temperature of millions of degrees(apologies to ‘They Might be Giants’, who no doubt lifted the phrase from somewhere/one else) Hydrogen may indeed fuse into He, but that is a mere 38% of the Sun’s energy. Now, seeing the Sun as a former supernova core clothed in Iron makes sense to my layman mind. The energy of Neutron repulsion explains much. The sun giving off such vast amounts of Hydrogen (‘smoke’) as protons, may explain the abundance of water ice in space, the abundance of water on Earth, The icy rings of Saturn and Neptune, the ice of Comets, and so on. Also the relation to climate as the Jovian planets alter the depth of the neutron core of the Sun and nudge it with respect to the solar system barycenter. “V. CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSED BY CHANGES IN THE POSITION OF THE SUN’S HIGH-DENSITY CORE RELATIVE TO ITS SURFACE.” http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf
    Is it safe to assume that Earth is continuously “receiving” water from the Sun? (as Hydrogen protons combine with Oxygen in our atmosphere?) Just wondering.

  129. Steve C says:

    “Today the financial system and governments are too over extended to ever be able to cover their debits”.

    Not half. If the numbers in this little article I saw on Activist Post are anywhere close to the truth, the phrase “over extended” is something of an understatement. Not so much R. de Haan’s “rollback of civilisation” as a full frontal assault.

  130. Zeke says:

    Yes, I think the US government is now trying to spend based on our privately held wealth (capital, retirement accounts, homes) rather than on GDP. They will then say they must take it to pay the debt, and persecute citizens selectively for “tax evasion.”

    However, I have done nothing wrong; it is they who have done all of these lawless acts. I am not going to get all depressed about other peoples’ evil plots to use legislation to seize property. That class is always doing the same thing, century after century.

  131. M Simon says:

    That class is always doing the same thing, century after century.

    And yet – excepting for a very few they don’t seem able to hold on to their gains.

  132. Zeke says:

    There is grief untold in their vast revenues.

  133. R. de Haan says:

    Total Debt USA 60 trillion USD: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-17/united-states-debt-total-debt-america-hits-new-record-high-nearly-60-trillion-dollar

    Total liabilities Deutsche Bank: 67 trillion USD.

    When this “dead man walking” collapses, this means “sudden death” of our “just in time delivery consumer” economy.

    This means empty shelves in the supermarkets.

    Just think about that.

    Why do you think the police in the US and Europe today have the same equipment standards as the military?

    Why do you think they want to take your guns?

    Why do you think the UK adopted a plan to distribute water canons country wide for the sole purpose of crowd control in case of a bank run?

    Why do you think the plans for a siege include the role out of a Nation wide grid of check posts and road blocks with travel restrictions for the entire population?

    Why do you think absolutely zero efforts have been made to stock up food supplies and alternate distribution, just in case….?

    Connect the dots and know where we’re heading.

    Think famine, think Ukraine under Stalin.

    Same tested method, only on a bigger scale.

    Population control and reduction according to UN agenda 21.


    It’s that and or other wars.

    Europe is the trigger signing the treaty with G, the US delivered the bullet.



    But there is still some hope…..neh, not really.




    We really need some real good news like a working LENR application ready for mass manufacturing and a deadly global epidemic among Government Officials.

  134. p.g.sharrow says:

    “a deadly global epidemic among Government Officials.”

    Don’t pay them! They have to get that paycheck or starve. Any other method will fail as you are paying them to subdue you and confiscate your wealth. That is always the way it works, ALWAYS
    Peacefully or not, rebuild on old foundations or ashes their choice. Just don’t pay them.
    We don’t need them. They need us. pg

  135. “We really need some real good news like a working LENR application ready for mass manufacturing and a deadly global epidemic among Government Officials.”

    i work on it..
    but for government i’m afraid they will be under pressure of all incumbent lobbies from big corps, oil, green, NGOs, Malthusians, Luddites, petronarchies, to workers union, grid workers, pension fund clients…
    LENr concern oil 10% of the economy, don’t expect much… 10% of energy saving , is what French government can burn in 2 years to buy voters.

    You idea of epidemic can work but is is the idea of “Market Sandbox” that LENr-Cities
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/49-Interview-with-Michel-Vandenberghe-of-LENR-Cities-moving-forward-Towards-a-Europ/?postID=96#post96 (I work on a new interview)
    is preparing under the concept of “Business Factory”. LENr like other invention are so disruptive for existing business and markets that no one want to develop it , sure it will vitrify it’s margin.
    Best approach is to develop a separate innovation subsidiary, like ShellGameChanger, Technova, Lockheed Martin Skunkworks, STNewVentures. This kind of structure can work inside an ecosystem of “fair rules” (lenr-cities for example sells the rules, the paper work, no more) and develop a new market protected from the big guys out… and soon like an epidemic this new market will swallow the old market, like a virus.

    it will not give a brain to the government, ie the voters (government stupidities are just derived from voters), but it will force all the companies to jump into the new rules of game…

    ps: for those interested there are few books. (I game much more in another post here, but probably too much)
    Excess Heat by Charles Beaudette (free pdf or pay paper) http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35
    The science of Low energu Nuclear reaction http://www.amazon.com/Science-Energy-Nuclear-Reaction-Comprehensive/dp/9812706208
    of if yoàu cannot get it his Student Guide to Cold Fusion book http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf and his review Status of Cold Fusion http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf
    see also his future book

    for the industrial moves, you can read the book of Mats Lewan, An Impossible Invention
    or else search on Internet reference to E-cat, with Elforsk (Swedish EPRI/DoE), Cherokee fund (who buyed the technology, and created Industrial Heat LLC) and some article about a technology transfer structure in China (Tianjin, with Tom Darnen – another article is about Baoding HIDZ)…

    my bet is that the soon to came third party report will not convince academic, and will not change anything for businessmen who are convinced it is to consider but are afraid of the disruption and move carefully…
    i expect LENR-Cities (or whoever can bring big players) will have more impact, because people will see that big guys are there… so they will feel both allowed to talk of it, and afraid to miss the train. If scientific evidence were able to convince, it would be done since long. what is needed is “allowance to consider” by “an authority”.

  136. E.M.Smith says:

    @Matthew Marler:

    I think it is a ‘fish or cut bait’ moment simply because they have declared a commercial ship schedule. This speaks to credibility. IFF they ship, the answer is “Yes, it works”. If they do not ship, it is pretty clear they were blowing smoke and a load of folks pack up and go home and no longer pay attention. (Yes, they could just have a schedule slip in a real product, that might show up in 2016, but I would not be watching until the adverts for it hit the TV…)

    So it’s a watershed year in that sense. Until now it has been “someday” vs. “bogus”. Now, via their own stated plans, it is “2014” vs “bogus”…


    On the ‘burning waste’ issue:

    I think there may be a definition quibble. You are calling all the high mass stuff in ‘spent fuel’ waste as it is part of the waste bundle; even though a lot of it is fissionable U or Pu isotopes. Others might be calling ‘waste’ only the fission products… So until you both specify what atoms you are calling ‘waste’ I think it will be a ‘does so ‘ vs ‘does not’ name calling debate…

    We had a working MSR in the past. From the wiki:

    The early Aircraft Reactor Experiment (1954) was primarily motivated by the small size that the design could provide, while the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (1965–1969) was a prototype for a thorium fuel cycle breeder reactor nuclear power plant.
    Aircraft reactor experiment
    Aircraft Reactor Experiment building at ORNL, it was later retrofitted for the MSRE.
    Main article: Aircraft Reactor Experiment

    Extensive research into molten salt reactors started with the U.S. aircraft reactor experiment (ARE) in support of the U.S. Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program. The ARE was a 2.5 MWth nuclear reactor experiment designed to attain a high power density for use as an engine in a nuclear-powered bomber. The project included several reactor experiments including high temperature reactor and engine tests collectively called the Heat Transfer Reactor Experiments: HTRE-1, HTRE-2 and HTRE-3 at the National Reactor Test Station (now Idaho National Laboratory) as well as an experimental high-temperature molten salt reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory – the ARE. The ARE used molten fluoride salt NaF-ZrF4-UF4 (53-41-6 mol%) as fuel, was moderated by beryllium oxide (BeO), used liquid sodium as a secondary coolant and had a peak temperature of 860 °C. It operated for 100 MW-hours over nine days in 1954. This experiment used Inconel 600 alloy for the metal structure and piping.[2]

    Molten-salt reactor experiment
    MSRE plant diagram
    Main article: Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment

    Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) took the lead in researching the MSR through 1960s, and much of their work culminated with the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE). The MSRE was a 7.4 MWth test reactor simulating the neutronic “kernel” of a type of epithermal thorium molten salt breeder reactor called the Liquid fluoride thorium reactor. The large, expensive breeding blanket of thorium salt was omitted in favor of neutron measurements.

    The MSRE was located at ORNL. Its piping, core vat and structural components were made from Hastelloy-N and its moderator was pyrolytic graphite. It went critical in 1965 and ran for four years. The fuel for the MSRE was LiF-BeF2-ZrF4-UF4 (65-29-5-1), the graphite core moderated it, and its secondary coolant was FLiBe (2LiF-BeF2). It reached temperatures as high as 650 °C and operated for the equivalent of about 1.5 years of full power operation.
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory molten salt breeder reactor

    The culmination of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory research during the 1970–1976 timeframe resulted in a proposed molten salt breeder reactor (MSBR) design which would use LiF-BeF2-ThF4-UF4 (72-16-12-0.4) as fuel, was to be moderated by graphite with a 4-year replacement schedule, use NaF-NaBF4 as the secondary coolant, and have a peak operating temperature of 705 °C.[3] Despite the success, the MSR program closed down in the early 1970s in favor of the liquid metal fast-breeder reactor (LMFBR),[4] after which research stagnated in the United States.[5][6] As of 2011, the ARE and the MSRE remained the only molten-salt reactors ever operated.

    The MSBR project received funding until 1976. Inflation-adjusted to 1991 dollars, the project received $38.9 million from 1968 to 1976.[7]

    The following reasons were cited as responsible for the program cancellation:

    The political and technical support for the program in the United States was too thin geographically. Within the United States, only in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was the technology well understood.[4]

    The MSR program was in competition with the fast breeder program at the time, which got an early start and had copious government development funds being spent in many parts of the United States. When the MSR development program had progressed far enough to justify a greatly expanded program leading to commercial development, the AEC could not justify the diversion of substantial funds from the LMFBR to a competing program.[4]

    Russian MSR research program

    In Russia, a molten-salt reactor research program was started in the second half of the 1970s at the Kurchatov Institute. It covered a wide range of theoretical and experimental studies, particularly the investigation of mechanical, corrosion and radiation properties of the molten salt container materials. The main findings of completed program supported the conclusion that there are no physical nor technological obstacles to the practical implementation of MSRs.[8] A reduction in activity occurred after 1986 due to the Chernobyl disaster, along with a general stagnation of nuclear power and nuclear industry.

    Remember too that the CANDU can use reprocessed fuel, and can ‘burn’ actinides from spent fuel. It is a somewhat omnivorous beast ;-)

    The DUPIC (Direct Use of spent PWR fuel In CANDU) process under development can recycle it even without reprocessing. The fuel is sintered in air (oxidized), then in hydrogen (reduced) to break it into a powder, which is then formed into CANDU fuel pellets. CANDU can also breed fuel from the more abundant thorium. This is being investigated by India to take advantage of its natural thorium reserves.[4]

    @Steve C:

    The “darknet” folks have been working on this sort of thing. I’ve put up pointers to ‘useful bits’. Oh, and you don’t need ‘the internet’ to set up networking. A modem and cooperating sites is enough. Encrypt the link through the telcos. (I’ve done it, in several ways. It’s the norm for corporate intra-nets). Heck, even old UUCP is ‘enough’. So in a SHTF moment, those laptops with built in modems are ‘enough’… and encrypted virtual tunnels can be sent through any allowed communications. Even packet radio…

    @Oscar (and others):

    I looked into the tech side of what OManuel had to say and found truth. That’s why I let the somewhat redundant postings that are a political / nuclear history rant stack up. Yes, they are a bit repetitive and we’ve all seen them too many times already. Oscar is a bit compulsive on that… But there is some valuable truth hiding behind them…

    I’ve gotten down to R. de Haan’s 14 minute ‘movie’, so I’m going to take a break and watch it, then be back to finish the comments.

    IMHO, the powers that be DID realize that a nuclear end was near, but only after JFK was assassinated ( my bias says it was Mafia with CIA ‘help’ as he was near to starting a nuclear war and ‘had to go’ after pissing off both sides – sides that had worked together in WWII – and old man Kennedy had ‘history’ with the Italian Mafia in that the Irish Mafia were seen as untrustworthy… see the history of the Valentines Day Massacre and the Irish / Italian angle and realize that Kennedy was in that area then running booze… So Kennedy and the Italian Mafia ‘had history’, then he burns them with backing out of the Bay of Pigs, almost causes a global nuclear war, and the CIA is not pleased. It’s a small step to ‘everyone’ deciding what’s best… then ‘having worked together in the past’, starting a little talk…. )

    At any rate, IMHO there is mileage in the notion that TPTBe decided to take more direct control of individuals and nations…

    The imminent massive proliferation of nukes to dozens of countries will likely upset that particular apple cart, and a nuclear war or two later the world will be different. I’m presently betting on an Iran / USA-Sunni axis with Israel as ‘salt’ as the most likely next nuclear war, though a N. Korea (China by proxy) vs USA-others in the S.China sea-S. Korea mode is also possible.

    OK, off to watch movie…

    Update: Didn’t get to the movie yet. Did a posting / answer to the Vuk question above instead. Perhaps tomorrow as it is past bed time now ;-)

  137. Pingback: Lunar Months, Tides; for Vukcevic | Musings from the Chiefio

  138. E.M.Smith says:

    OK, watched the movie and read the links. Frankly, I don’t buy the thesis that a small use of nuclear (NOT Nuk-U-lar) weapons would result in the destruction of most humans on earth. Sorry, same bogus models and ‘science for political effect’ that gave us AGW gives us Nuclear Winter…

    Why do I think that? We already had a nuclear war. Japan was hit with two of them. Not much happened outside the bomb zone. Which bombing caused the most deaths in Japan? The firebombing of Tokyo… not the nukes.

    Nothing at all prevents us from dropping a nuke on Iran, or N. Korea, or much of any other country we wanted to subdue, with the exception of Russia. (In that case, their nuclear subs can take out our cities if we take out their land systems).

    The simple fact is that volcanoes are more massive than nukes by a lot. Solar heating beats nukes. Etc. etc.

    So no, not feeling particularly paranoid about anyone wanting to keep nukes or that we might have ‘extinction’ from them. Nobody is going to do a 1st strike against a major power anyway, since the subs are enough alone and you can’t take out the subs. The major use of nukes would be against smaller countries without navies or by small countries against each other (think Iran / Israel). Not enough tonnage to be other than a regional event. The notion of a Global Thermonuclear Destruction leading to a sterilized Earth is just fanciful. Wipe out the major cities? Sure. But the rest of the world would be just fine.

    FWIW I looked into this in some depth some long time ago (pre-blog years). Had a bug-out bag and pre-planned escape route to get outside the blast radius of Soviet munitions. As we were just at the edge of the survival zone for the small nuke sub launched that would hit Moffett Field, we knew we’d have just enough time to get out of the 50 Megaton giant bomb range that would arrive 20 minutes later. Had fallout maps and the works, including overpressure maps with distance and the whole nine yards. Even have my old Geiger Counter in the garage somewhere… So I’m not just saying things from a ‘what I want to hear’ point of view.

    Yes, all out nuclear war between Russia and the USA would result in the functional elimination of both governments and all major cities in both countries. No, Argentina and Australia would not have destruction from it. China would likely have a bad day, but as long as they didn’t start launching things would likely just lose 1/4 of their population (max) and then get world domination handed to them. (And that much only due to being down wind from Russia / Kazak targets; and Russia likely to take them out ‘just in case’…)

    OK, now I don’t have time for the rest of the comments. Maybe tomorrow…. now it’s bed time again…

  139. Thanks EM, for your analysis. A helpful contribution.

  140. LG says:

    @ E.M.
    Since you brought this up:

    ” but only after JFK was assassinated ( my bias says it was Mafia with CIA ‘help’ as he was near to starting a nuclear war and ‘had to go’ after pissing off both sides”

    I thought you might no object to my suggesting you consider perusing this book, if you’re so inclined.

  141. omanuel says:

    @LG and E.M. Smith

    A. There is little or no doubt that the rise and fall of space science in the United States followed John F. Kennedy’s life and inversely followed that of Nixon and Kissinger in 1960-1972:

    1. 1960 surprise election over Nixon was to prevent USSR domination
    2. 1961 Apollo program was to protect the USA from USSR domination
    3. 1963 assassination and the murder of Kennedy’s assassin
    4. 1968 murder of his brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and
    5. 1972 cancellation of the Apollo program by Nixon & Kissinger

    B. 1960-1972 does not include abrupt changes in physics and astronomy at the end of WWII:

    1. The internal composition of stars abruptly changed from iron (Fe) to hydrogen (H)
    2. Weizsacker’s flawed nuclear binding energy replaced Aston’s valid nuclear packing fraction
    3. Neutrons changed from (e-, p+) pairs => (pi-, p+) pairs; N-N interactions became attractive


    C. On a longer time scale the scientific revolution that started in 1543 had ended quietly in 1945:


    Finally, E.M. Smith, I appreciate your patience in allowing a repeat of actual information that some may not yet want to consider.

  142. omanuel says:

    I.e., the scientific revolution ended fifteen years before John F. Kennedy became President.

  143. E.M.Smith says:


    I think you are likely correct on the timing for the change of science attitude (likely as a way to hide how to make nukes – I’ve seen other evidence of attempting to make the path to nukes harder to figure out. Like the emphasis on LWR instead of Heavy Water).

    However, I think that was a technical shift, not so much political. The political shift, IMHO, was after Ike. Until then, it was, IMHO, the central government trying to hide military useful tech. Then Kennedy, and they made the shift to a hidden power structure controlling the political.

    No, I’m not a conspiracy advocate. I think it “just growed”. And over a period of time.


    I’ve seen a TV version of the “LBJ did it” thesis. I suspect, but can’t prove, that he had involvement. Just don’t know how much. Leader and instigator? Or “guy in the wings” tapped on the shoulder and asked to be ready to take over.

    FWIW, I’ve watched for patterns in the Chief Exec. vs VP. Looks to me like whenever a populist gets the head position in the primaries, they get a ‘machine’ guy assigned as VP. To be a ‘spare’ in case the populist gets out of line… Folks from ‘the inside’ (like Daddy Bush and Baby Bush) get special treatment. Daddy Bush had Quayle. Nobody going to bump off Daddy Bush and be stuck with Quayle… While Baby Bush was told to just do what The Team told him to do and we had Cheney there to do the real job of Da Prez, and keep Baby Bush’s nose clean. So Obama gets stuck with BIden (a long time insider who had said some horrific things about him in the primaries) once Madame Hillary didn’t make it. Going the other way, Regan had Bush to tend him (and got shot at when a bit pushy…). So, to me, it looks like since about the Nixon / Ford or maybe Carter / Mondale sets, somewhere in there the process moved away from both being what the people wanted, to one being a ‘machine chosen spare’ if they don’t get the lead.

    I suspect the model, or exemplar, of that might have been Kennedy / Johnson. Johnson was a known machine politician. Kennedy the populist with radical ideas. After the “swap”, the idea of preparing for it ahead of time via packing the ticket in the primaries seems stronger…

    Maybe it’s just a paranoid delusion, but that’s what the pattern looks like. TPTB not going to take a chance on an all-people-choosen ticket with no direct guy on the team. Just in case…

    @Ken McMurtrie:

    Thanks. Glad you like it. I just think “the time is ripe” and it comes out now; or it ends up rotting…

    @P.G. and others, per olives:

    It’s pretty simple. Leave the door ajar for peace, but never stop the hard press until the opponent is defeated. Not just wounded. Not just “pausing”. They must know that the options are to choose peace, or face utter defeat and destruction. Turning the other cheek too early just gets you two slapped cheeks…


    Interesting link… but I’ll be a believer when:

    1) They talk about MW-hours, not just MW.
    2) ALL power for the reactor is produced by the unit itself, no external connections, and it runs for a week that way making significant excess about that.

    As long as it is instantaneous pulses of a few mili-seconds from a device plugged into the wall, well, you don’t have any real proof.

    @M. Simon:

    The “notch” thing is sort of interesting, but I’m not seeing where it is any different from saying that there is an 11 year solar cycle, but no detected effect. (So “notched” out…)

    Just not getting the energy of it… Maybe in a few weeks I can read it all and figure out what makes folks so worked up. Did read article one. Just wondered “How is this different from ‘nothing happens’ with sun changes?”

    @”The perpetual topic of economic collapse from debt':

    Yes, ti is likely to happen. But I’m pretty sure we’re not going to be as dire as the ’30s.

    Mostly debt means someone TODAY has given up consumption so that someone else TODAY has already enjoyed it. Doesn’t matter what the money does, that is the reality under it. If we, today, had a collapse of the $US and repudiation of debt, most of that repudiation would fall on the Chinese, Japanese, and our own elderly. (The elderly are the folks raking in cash via Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, pensions, etc. All the things that would be lost in a collapse.) A bunch of insurance products would be worthless too.

    But all the farms are still there. The factories (that haven’t gone to China) are still there. The cars and roads. It can all still produce and deliver. Just that the folks who have been getting ‘excess’ don’t get it any more.

    To the extent it will be bad, it will be due to China having the factories and not selling us stuff on credit any more. So we get to live without a load of new phones, computers, plastic junk with our lunch bags at the fast food place, etc. We have so much physical wealth as a nation now that even if we dropped to 1/2 the present production, we’d live in a world of plenty.

    In short, a monetary collapse is a PITA, but not the end of the real goods and production of the physical economy. It’s the political part that breaks things. Oh, and the (already largely complete) movement of physical production to China… It takes time to remake a factory once it is gone.

    While I’d rather avoid that outcome, it isn’t quite so dire as painted. (Many countries have had a currency collapse or economic collapse with only minimal real damage – and much of that caused by pissed off people being stupid. Such as Greece. And such as rioters in France torching cars… Just means you have fewer cars and they cost more…

    @Per packing vs binding and other nuclear bits:

    The notion of a neutron as a proton with a very tight electron is very appealing to me. I’d not heard of it before here. Similarly, the idea of packing fraction as more accurate is something I need to learn more about.

    I have a poorly formed idea about matter. (With a link or two to go with it… another posting I’ve not gotten done…) For example, two photons can be whacked together to make matter. Take matter, and you can get photons to come out of it. I think matter is just photons that have turned linear momentum into angular momentum (and a very very tiny radius!).

    Now take a few photons that make a bit of matter. Angular momentum making mass out of linear velocity. (How is a bit murky ;-) but say it might be an artifact of a ‘speed of light’ swirl in the space time continuum… that vortex also being gravity.) So if some has spin one way, and the other spin the other way, you could get + and – charge. EM wave function having more electric force show up and less magnetic. Get enough photons spinning in a cluster, you get a proton.

    Now the idea of a neutron as an e- close to a P+ makes more sense. The photons of the electron circle so closely that their EM field masks and cancels that of the proton swarm of photons circling the other way. Not close enough to collapse the wave functions into annihilation liberating all the photons in a non-angular linear flight, but close enough that they mask the EM swirls impact on space-time, but leaving the physical gravity swirls. We get the neutron. Left alone for a while, it degenerates back into a looser collective.

    Somehow we need to figure out a way that “just photons” as they shift from linear to angular rotational momentum can make all energy and matter. How to control more directly the transitions back and forth.

    Don’t know that I’ll ever get it all worked out, or even far enough along to make a decent presentation of it. But I think the idea of a photon basic particle as room to run. And that photon angular moment makes mass and gravity has some potential too. Some kind of relativistic thing where a speed of light rotation causes the effects of mass to show up.

    Well, enough of that. It’s just speculative musing so far, and not very usable for anything… Maybe in another decade or two of pondering it will go somewhere…

  144. M Simon says:

    “How is this different from ‘nothing happens’ with sun changes?”

    Nothing happens vs happening delayed. The exercise is not complete until the cause of the delay is teased out. Joe and David intend to crowd source that part of the exercise. We shall see if anything comes of it. The Sun is not my area of expertise. I’m more at home with Bode Plots (the temperature vs TSI plot).

    The EE fraternity has developed an interesting set of tools. They are in fact the foundation of our current civilization and yet outside the field very few know anything about those tools. Problem solving tools.

    I liked what Bucky Fuller used to say about all that (roughly):

    “When you get good at solving problems things don’t get easier. They give you harder problems.”

  145. M Simon says:

    EM wave function having more electric force show up and less magnetic.

    You do realize that “charge” and “magnetism” are duals and which shows up is entirely frame of reference dependent. I like Feynman’s take on magnetism – very difficult. I use it every day and still don’t get it. A potential field is not quite so difficult.

    BTW I have always been troubled by “add these heavy particles together and you get this much lighter particle” – it smacks of epicycles. Perhaps a photonic understanding of mass will explain it better.

  146. omanuel says:

    @E.M. Smith

    I deeply appreciate your insight and comments. When your time permits (I know you have many other obligations), I would appreciate your explanation for three intriguing events after WWII:

    1. Why did our mainstream media not tell the public
    _ a.) Japan had an atomic bomb production plant at Konan, Korea?
    _ b.) Japan exploded an atomic bomb off the east coast of Korea?
    _ c.) Stalin’s USSR troops captured Japan’s A-bomb plant and personnel?
    _ d.) USSR troops also shot down and captured the crew of an American plane?

    2. Why did mainstream scientists suddenly, without discussion or debate, change the interior of the Sun and other ordinary stars from iron (Fe) in 1945 to hydrogen (H) in 1946 [This abrupt change is documented on pages 153-154 of Fred Hoyle’s 1994 autobiography] ?

    3. Why did textbooks replace Aston’s rigorously valid nuclear packing fraction with von Weizsacker’s seriously flawed nuclear binding energy after WWII? [During the war, von Weizsacker was the theoretical physicist that advised Hitler’s scientists how NOT to successfully build an atomic bomb.]

    Thanks, E.M. Smith. These are some of the reasons I suspect that a master propaganda artist, like the USSR’s Joseph Stalin, directed a worldwide campaign after WWII to hide the source of energy that caused cores of uranium and plutonium atoms to explode – neutron repulsion !

  147. M Simon says:

    the source of energy that caused cores of uranium and plutonium atoms to explode – neutron repulsion !

    And they were very clever about it. They never even pointed to it. Instead we (Naval Nuke School ’65) studied magic numbers and things like: Too many protons = unstable (that makes sense – too much localized positive charge.). Too many neutrons = unstable (no reason given – just hand waving). Empirically true and you could do engineering with it – if your empirics were good.

  148. p.g.sharrow says:

    @EMSmith; I like your above comment reasoning better then that of the next post. But the practical results are the same.

    Get the matter/energy density of hydrogen/neutron to the point of conversion and make them dance.

    Energy released during changes in size of the electron shell will be net positive due to the electrostatic pressure of the universe on matter. Something like gravity is the result of this pressure. All present atomic energy production is the result of neutrons reverting to hydrogen. An EMF spike caused by the electronshell change in size of a basketball to that of the US.

    I would think a device based on unstable isotopes and hydrogen with a high frequency input would do the trick.
    The Rossi device does not “Make copper” for it’s energy output.. The copper is a byproduct created by the active atom getting “stuck” as non reactive copper. The device is “tuned” to react at the conditions needed for the reactive isotopes used, heavy nickle. Your tables of earlier posts point to many isotopes that could work. In the end, any method the creates the energy/matter density needed to make that CONTROLLED dance will work. Just needs the correct applied science/engineering and a shit load of work! pg

  149. omanuel says:

    @M. Simon

    Yes, you answered question #3 for our host: “Why did textbooks replace Aston’s rigorously valid nuclear packing fraction with von Weizsacker’s seriously flawed model of nuclear binding energy?”

    von Weizsacker’s model of nuclear binding energy hid neutron repulsion and exaggerated proton repulsion !

    Who was clever enough in 1945 to take advantage of a feeble minded theoretical physicist to deceive and take totalitarian control of the world?

    Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard has just pulled the curtain on the modern- day “Wizard of Oz” and exposed the ghost of Joseph Stalin pulling the strings on an alphabet of “scientific” agencies – NAS, NSA, NASA, EPA, etc. – that use science to control, rather than to benefit, the public.

  150. omanuel says:

    Here is the story on the outing of Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard:


  151. L. E. Joiner says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    2 July 2014 at 4:21 am

    I don’t understand your speculations about photons, etc. (nor for that matter much else in this thread), but your mention of momenta reminded me of the theories of Dewey B. Larson, who held that the primary constituent of all space and time was ‘motion’. As I vaguely recall, he had worked out an entire Periodic Table based on types of motion. It’s been a long time since I looked at Larson’s books, to which a late and decidedly idiosyncratic friend named Todd Kelso introduced me. I found the notion of ‘motion’ (unintentional rhyme) versus ‘particle’ unintuitive, but so for that matter are the sub- and sub-sub-particles postulated by current subatomic physics. There’s a web site devoted to Dewey B. Larson’s theories and works:


    One of these days I mean to go back and see if I can make head or tail of it. I expect you and others here are better equipped than I am, though.

    /Mr Lynn

  152. L. E. Joiner says:

    I should add that Larson argued that the ‘solar system’ model of the atom, a nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons, was wrong. One of his works was entitled The Case Against The Nuclear Atom. I read it, and thought he made a convincing case.

    /Mr Lynn

  153. p.g.sharrow says:

    @LEJoiner; The concept of “Electrons” in planetary type orbits does not create the correct image of atomic structure. An atom has electron shell with layers of charge units that have no determinable position. They just have energy levels that they occupy inside of the outer shell that is the “surface” of the atom. The electron shell is a “negative” charge force field of 1 or 2 charge units, other levels of charge units are inside the outer shell. Nothing like a solar system layout. pg

  154. L. E. Joiner says:

    @ p.g. sharrow: I misremembered Larson’s argument (it has been decades since I read his book on ‘the nuclear atom’). Larson begins by arguing that Rutherford’s hypothesis that the atom contained a nucleus was wrong; the ‘nucleus’ is in fact ‘the atom’. Electrons are evanescent particles that are not constituents of atoms at all. Take a look at the book:


    The whole quite readable text is available there.

    /Mr Lynn

  155. omanuel says:

    @M Simon et al.

    If the free neutron is an (electron, proton) pair (e-, p+) in close combination, as Chadwick imagined

    And if the bound neutron is a (pion, proton) pair (pi-, p+) as Yukawa imagined

    Could neutron repulsion be the source of energy that converts the electron to a pion: e- => pi- ??

  156. p.g.sharrow says:

    @OManuel: I have been thinking about your challenge above and things keep standing out to me.

    A naked proton that exhibits no electron shell due to very high energy levels has the lowest mass/inertia.
    A hydrogen atom with a modest energy energy level has a electron shell and certain mass/inertia.
    A Condensed hydrogen/neutron with low energy level has a higher mass/inertia.
    A neutron that converts to hydrogen releases a huge amount of energy and loses a small amount of mass.

    There is no doubt a great deal of repulsion caused by the electronic charge field. The question is how is it that the changes in size and strength of the field also shows up as changes in mass/inertia? The apparent stronger field manifest as less mass/inertia? pg

  157. M Simon says:


    I have no idea.

  158. omanuel says:

    This is NOT a novel idea:

    Reality is observed. E.g., Albert Einstein & Francis W. Aston:
    E = mc^2 !

    Reality is calculated. E.g., von Weizsacker: Nuclear binding energy equation !

    The ending of WWII illustrates the advantages of (1) over (2).

  159. E.M.Smith says:

    Hmmm…. Stuff making me think…. ;-)

    I’ve forgotten what a Pion is, so I’ll need to go re-learn that….

    But generally I do think there is more mileage in the idea of a spherical layer cake of charges and less in a solar system model. These things are a bit fuzzy in shape and size, and not wandering around in orbits, but in odd shaped statistical probability zones.

    One of my favorite ‘issues’ being the P orbital where an electron has a specific positive probability of existing on each side of the nucleus, but an absolute zero probability of every being exactly on the plane down the middle. “Somehow” it has to “tunnel” from one side to the other, while never being in the middle… Never did like that answer…

    Now a charge field could be spread between the two sides… having a wave function that drops to a zero probability in the middle…

    Which kind of also implies that an electron wave function could be closer or further from a proton as needed… and if really really close the whole thing ends up a neutron… Hmmm….

  160. p.g.sharrow says:

    @EMSmith; Exactly!

    An “electron” is a quanta of charge, not a solid “thing”

    Now the next step:
    The electron shell is a creation of the proton. An electronic field that reaches resonance density at a specific distance from the creating proton. pg

  161. gallopingcamel says:

    I missed your comment (shown below) otherwise I would have responded sooner:
    “You are calling all the high mass stuff in ‘spent fuel’ waste as it is part of the waste bundle; even though a lot of it is fissionable U or Pu isotopes”

    Gen I & II reactors burn U235. Leaving out military reactors that use highly enriched fuel this means that less than 1% of the Uranium is consumed before the fuel rod is removed from the reactor for reprocessing or long term storage as “Nuclear Waste”.

    The “Nuclear Waste” might be better named “Unburnt Fuel”. There are many designs of breeder reactors that can burn almost all of the heavy elements regardless of whether they are fissile or not. This is a complex subject as each reactor design is different. The design I find most interesting is the LFTR. According to Kirk Sorensen, David LeBlanc and Joe Bonometti, LFTRs can consume over 99% of the heavy elements (atomic weight >232).

    In the case of Gen I & II reactors it takes 100-200 tonnes of fuel to generate 1 GW-year of electricity and you end up ~150 tonnes of mis-named “Nuclear Waste” that is mostly unburnt U238.

    An LFTR would only need one tonne of fuel to generate the same amount of electricity so you end up with only one tonne of “Nuclear Waste” consisting mainly of light elements. The waste produced by LFTRs decays into stable elements relatively quickly so geologic storage is not required:

    A tonne of LFTR “Waste” also contains about 10 kg of Pu238.

  162. E.M.Smith says:

    IMHO the push to U based light water reactors was driven by the military wanting to make it look hard to make bombs / use nuclear power; largely as a way to keep folks in the rest of the world from going down that path (or at least making them spend a LOT of time and money to do it).

    That is, I think they were looking to keep a near monopoly on nuclear tech.

    It sort of worked, too. It wasn’t until India blew off a bunch of nukes that someone ‘caught on’ that you can make SNM pretty easy with both CANDU type and research reactors; and that you can use regular LWR ‘fuel’ to make a bomb if you work at it carefully. India made both a power reactor fuel bomb, and a U233 from Th bomb – proving both can be done. ( We in the USA did it too, earlier, for a mixed fuel bomb – I think that’s part of why they spent so much time ‘leaking’ how to make a bomb via the hard paths… )

    At any rate, yes, there is a near infinite supply of energy, with very little real waste at all, with power reactors based on technology we have known and used decades ago. The rest is just engineering and construction…

  163. omanuel says:

    E. M. Smith, p.g. sharrow, et al.

    Your comments on the information on page 3 of the new manuscript would be appreciated.

    Does this clearly explain how nuclear forces cause changes in nuclear decay and nuclear structure?

  164. omanuel says:


    Let me know if you have time and interest in pursuing the idea that the rest mass of an expanded electron is zero in space, although the measured rest mass of an electron confined to nuclear dimensions is 0.511 MeV.

  165. gallopingcamel says:

    E.M.Smith said:
    “IMHO the push to U based light water reactors was driven by the military wanting to make it look hard to make bombs,,,”

    The military wanted reactors that would produce Pu239 which is why the USA, Russia, the UK, France and Canada all stuck with U. Here in the USA that cost Alvin Weinberg his job.

    Yes, you can make fissile U233 from Thorium but it contains enough U232 (a nasty gamma emitter) to damage solid state electronics. The high power electronics (Kryton driven) for detonating the implosion charges will work perfectly but the low level electronics will have to be based on vacuum tubes instead of semiconductors. During WWII the V2 missiles had vacuum tube proximity fuses that were highly reliable, so we know it can be done.

    When building the Duke FEL, the gamma ray flux in the LINAC vault killed CCD cameras in a matter of hours so I was forced to scour the country for Vidicons. Most of the Vidicons I bought in 1994 are still working but the picture quality deteriorated after a few years even though we did our best to deliver the gamma ray flux into buried “beam dumps”.

  166. p.g.sharrow says:

    omanuel says:
    4 August 2014 at 3:26 pm
    @omanual; I have been considering your proposal and am interested.
    Where should we continue this?
    First a definition of “expanded” electron is in order. pg.

  167. omanuel says:


    “Where should we continue this?” We might continue the discussion here, if the moderator agrees, on my blog, or on your blog.

    This issue is related to these empirical facts:
    1. The visible universe is filled with matter instead of anti-matter
    2. Beta decay energy energies are continuous, up to
    _ a.) Q = M(Parent) – M(Daughter) for electron emission
    _ a.) Q = M(Parent) – M(Daughter) – 1.022 MeV for positron emission
    3. An infinitesimal amount of energy is required to finally ionize and release the electron from its highest energy level in the hydrogen atom

  168. p.g.sharrow says:

    @0manual; I rather doubt Smith would care if we continue here. In fact he might be pleased that science was examined here rather then politics.

    As to number 1. “The visible universe is filled with matter instead of anti-matter” I know of no reason for GOD to create Anti-Matter even if Mathematicians need it to balance their equations. There is the problem that 96% of the mass of the Universe is not accounted for in the visible Universe.
    Anti-matter would indicate “anti-gravity”. The visible Universe is created when “gravity” draws matter together. Anti-gravity would push things apart, ergo no anti-matter densification. Just a spur of the moment thought. Not sure if it has any value.

    Number 2. “Beta decay energy energies are continuous” I will defer to you as that is not my field.

    Number 3. “An infinitesimal amount of energy is required to finally ionize and release the electron from its highest energy level in the hydrogen atom” When one fills a glass of water to the brim, you might add 199 drops more without it overflowing, but 1 additional drop will cause the surface tension to fail and cascade all 200 drops out. So I am not sure if number 3 is significant. pg

  169. omanuel says:

    I co-authored an unpublished paper with a graduate student in 2003 on matter-antimatter asymmetry.

    If he agrees, I will post the paper here to begin the discussion.

  170. This thread was about LENR. My purpose was to point out that it does not matter that LENR is a scam because there are a bunch of Generation IV fission reactors designed to produce electricity with the ability to consume the “Nuclear Waste” produced by the roughly 400 “Legacy” NPPs around the world.

    My personal favorite is the LFTR which can be scaled down to 100 MWe units that can be mass produced and delivered to site on a single 40 foot truck. A thousand of these units would take care of our growing need for electricity while allowing older power plants to be retired. LFTRs could consume “Nuclear Waste” while making all kinds of valuable isotopes such as Tc99 and Pu238.

  171. omanuel says:


    I agree mankind must harness nuclear energy to advance, but we must also avoid any exaggerated claims.

    The most simple mandate would be a requirement that all “waste” be used as a source of energy rather than buried for future generations to deal with.

  172. omanuel,
    We agree that Nuclear Waste” is fuel that can produce 100 times more energy than it did when burned in Generation I&II reactors.

    You may be right. The claims of LFTR advocates may be exaggerated. In my view it will cost very little to answer the question as one can build really small MSRs (Molten Salt Reactors). Remember that the first one was intended to power an aeroplane.

    So will the USA build Generation IV reactors? In my opinion that is highly unlikely:

  173. p.g.sharrow says:

    Soon my friends. Prophecies say that the “Great Deceiver” will be replaced with a “Wise Odd Man” (men) that gives humans 2 gifts as will as a path of peace. One is clean nuclear energy, the other is an electric space drive..
    First the Liberal Progressive disease must burned itself out and the Muslim warlords eradicated. Both of these are underway even now. The Internet is the key. They can no longer hide from the people.
    We live in interesting times. pg

  174. omanuel says:

    May your prophecy happen soon.

    Steven Goddard is helping to make that happen: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/noaa-fraud-of-the-day/#comments

  175. Let me improve on the information posted on Steven Goddard’s blog:

    The primary purpose of government science is to obscure the force that generates energy, fuel and food with pseudo-cosmology, astronomy, nuclear and astro-physics so world leaders could themselves assume the historical role of God with totalitarian control over all humanity.

    Three forms of one commodity (energy, fuel and food) are natural products of the spontaneous transformation of compressed nuclear matter (mostly neutrons) from cores of heavy nuclei, stars and galaxies into expanded atomic interstellar matter (mostly hydrogen) as our infinite universe expands in half of one cosmic breath [1-3]

    1. “Is the Universe Expanding?” The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011):

    2. “Neutron Repulsion”, The APEIRON Journal 19, 123-150 (2012):

    3. “Solar energy,” Journal of Solar Energy (submitted 25 July 2014) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Preprint_Solar_Energy.pdf

  176. What I got out of Oliver’s arguments above is:
    1. The strongest nuclear force is the (short range) attraction between neutrons and protons.
    2. The intermediate nuclear force is the repulsion between protons (long range Coulomb force).
    3. The weakest nuclear force is the (short range) repulsion between neutrons.

    This neatly explains why stable nuclei consist of neuton-proton pairs are so common. I guess one has to do the mathematics carefully to understand why you can’t keep adding proton-neutron pairs indefinitely to produce really heavy elements. Adding excess neutrons can help to improve the stabilty of large nuclei but eventually too many neutrons brings instability through the “weak” repulsion between neutrons.

    I had the idea that the “Weak Nuclear Force” was an attraction but it seems easier to explain the stability of nuclei assuming a repulsive force.

    I hope Oliver will set me straight if I have misunderstood what he is saying.

  177. omanuel says:


    Sorry for the delay in responding. You caught many, but perhaps missed, the most important point for compressed CORES of ATOMS, STARS, & GALAXIES.

    1. For mass less than ~150 amu, the CORES are pairs of (n, p+) pairs held together by the strongest nuclear force below ~150 amu.

    2. For mass above ~150 amu, CORES consist only of neutrons because the repulsive force between protons limits protons or pairs of (n, p+) pairs to the surface. That is why alpha-emission only occurs above ~150 amu.

    3. As in spiritual teachings, the WEAKEST nuclear force – the repulsion force between neutrons – rules the CORES of all ATOMS, STARS, GALAXIES and perhaps some PLANETS with masses greater than ~150 amu.

    May the section in bold emphasize the easily overlooked part of my message.

    By hiding the force that generates all the world’s food, fuel and energy, leaders and their scientists assumed for themselves the position that God had formerly occupied in society!

  178. The number zero (0) is a firm quantitative upper limit on the probably that politicians and puppet scientists will successfully assume the position that God occupied in society before 1945.

    Politicians and puppet scientists are now trapped, like rats on a sinking ship, refusing to publicly discuss any of the precise experimental measurement that exposed sixty-nine years (2014 – 1945 = 69 yrs) of fraudulent government science:


  179. omanuel says:

    Conclusion: Neutron repulsion is the weakest nuclear force in the most abundant ordinary elements (Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca).

    This force rules the universe from the cores of ordinary stars and galaxies.

  180. gallopingcamel says:

    Thanks for your comments. My field is quantum electro-optics rather than nuclear physics.

    Until readlng your links I had given little thought to the structure of large atomic nuclei. My thinking was limited to small nuclei which are easy to visualize. The structure of a hydrogen nucleus with one proton makes perfect sense. Deuterium with one proton and one neutron made sense too, Tritium with a neutron/proton pair plus an extra neutron seems improbable so it was no surprise to learn that it is unstable (radioactive).

    Helium with two protons and two neutrons is even easier to visualize although I realize that visualization may make little sense in a realm where quantum mechanics rules.

    You explain the observed properties of nuclei above 150 amu in terms of a model consisting primarily of neuton/proton pairs in an outer shell containing a core of neutrons. Let me think about that……………………………

  181. omanuel says:

    Sorry I have not visited this site lately and therefore overlooked many good comments. Let me just post a brief summary:

    I believe modern society is about to witness a re-enactment of the classic battle between good and evil.

    This time the battle is between the

    1. Malevolent forces that secretly took totalitarian control of planet Earth at the end of WWII to save the world from nuclear annihilation [1], and

    2. Benevolent forces in the core of the Sun that
    a.) Made our chemical elements
    b.) Birthed the Solar System five billion years (5 Ga) ago
    c.) Sustained the origin and evolution of life on Earth after 3.5 Ga ago
    d.) Still controls every atom, star and world in the Solar System today, . . .

    a volume of space greater than the combined volumes of ten billion billion – 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 – Earth’s

    1. “Defending humanity . . .” http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/02/2015-defending-humanity-by-reason-or-force/

    2. “Solar energy,” (submitted 1 Sept 2014) Advances in Astronomy

  182. E.M.Smith says:


    Just now got time to review your prepub. Comments follow:

    Page 1: “was
    more circumvent” Probably meant “circumspect” ?

    Page 2: Red text on bright yellow background is way over the top. Use one, or the other, but not both. It hurts the eyes and looks a bit extreme.

    Page 3: “the core consists of pairs of neutron-proton (n, p+) pairs” and further down:
    “of pairs of neutron-proton(n, p+) pairs:” and yet again:
    “with pairs of neutron-proton (n, p+) pairs ”

    Probably don’t really need ‘pairs of pairs’ and ought to drop one of the ‘pairs’… I’d likely drop the first “of pairs” in each sentence.

    Pages 13 & 14: Same comment on Red text with Yellow highlight: Pick one, not both.

    Page 14: “Nagasaki from cores uranium and” I think you need an “of” between cores and uranium….

    General comment: For publication, I’d leave out the political aspect and just focus on the physics.

  183. E.M.Smith says:

    @M. Simon:

    Yes, I know they are a dual. I’m saying which way the dual leans, not that one thing ends and another arrives. So in some states more mag is shown, in others more elec, but it’s all the (electro-magnetic) electroweak force.

    @PG & Oscar:

    Discussion here is fine with me.

    And yes, I generally like “tech talk” more than political things ( that I only cover as they are an impact on a more sane life ;-)

    Oh, and generally “Page 3″ does an OK job of explaining, I think… But I’ve read your stuff a few times before so I’m already kind of familiar with it.

    Per anti-matter: My idea on rotation of photons would just mean that anti-matter had the photons rotating in the opposite direction. When matter and anti-matter meet, the inertia cancels and you get a pot full of linear photons headed out all sorts of ways. The imbalance in percents just means the initial (conserved) angular momentum was to one direction…


    Yes to molten salt reactors… They will come from China.

    Oh, and on atomic stability, note that the distance over which the various forces work is different. So extreme pressures and even just the increase in nucleus size with particle count both of an effect on the total force balance.


    Per your “why” questions:

    Military folks always act to hide any tech that gives them an advantage. Even things like gas mask methods and plastic vests / ceramic inserts. Why hide the Japanese nuke program? Because it wasn’t commonly known, and we wanted to make Japan our puppet, not continue to whip folks up. Also didn’t want to let it be known how many countries were close to a bomb (or had one) and how easy it really could be to make one…

    Heck, I worked on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and they didn’t like folks to know it was kevlar lined to catch spall or that the “aluminum armor” was kind of poor… or that the engine was more fragile than desired and sucked gas like crazy… The nature of all military is secrecy and deception.

    One simple example:

    As a kid, I read about a new tech that was going to make cheap private planes a reality. It was a plastic composite airplane made by a dentist. Only problem was that only the engine showed up on radar so it was hard to see for towers… Then the idea just ended. About 30 years later, reading a book on Stealth, it mentioned that a key part of it was invented by a dentist working on a private plane project… My take is that the Military stepped in, classified it, and made it disappear for a couple of decades. Only after other composites were re-discovered all over was it let out of the bag. That’s just what the military always does.


    Well, this being 2015, I guess it is time to do a follow-up and see if any real news is out there…

  184. omanuel says:

    Quick response:

    Thanks for the excellent comments:

    1. Yes, “circumspect” would have been much better than “circumvent.” Kuroda maintained secret possession of proof of Japan’s atomic bomb project for fifty-seven years (2002 – 1945 = 57 years), over a time period when possession of atomic bomb secrets was extremely dangerous.

    BBC News, “Atomic plans returned to Japan,” News Front Page, World Edition (3 Aug 2002) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm

    2. The powerful, short-range forces are almost saturated in the He-4 nucleus a pair of neutron-proton pairs. These pairs of neutron-proton pairs are first appear at the nuclear surface as alpha-emission in Nd-144.

    3. Spontaneous fission first appears in Th-232. The surface of that nucleus is 45 alpha-particles and the core is 52 neutrons.

    4. Neutron-induced fission appeared in U-235. Its surface is 46 alpha particles and its core is 51 neutrons. That destroyed Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945.

    5. Neutron-induced fission also occurs in Pu-239. Its surface is 47 alpha particles and its core is 51 neutrons. That destroyed Nagasaki on 9 Aug 1945.

  185. E.M.Smith says:

    2. The powerful, short-range forces are almost saturated in the He-4 nucleus a pair of neutron-proton pairs. These pairs of neutron-proton pairs are first appear at the nuclear surface as alpha-emission in Nd-144.

    Ah, much clearer what you were saying… making it alpha particles is a nice touchstone.

    Though I’d change “neutron-proton pairs are first appear” into either:

    neutron-proton pairs first appear
    neutron-proton pairs are first present

  186. E.M.Smith says:

    Interesting article in ecat news:

    October 8, 2014
    Update 22 Oct 2014:

    Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the debate. Rossi continues to deliver even if it is not what he promised. Despite many sceptics deriding the man as a third rate showman, I tip my hat to his ability to keep this show going. It is too easy to label anyone in his camp an idiot. That would apply to too many otherwise intelligent scientists. There are many lessons here but most of them revolve around human nature. We can pore over the minutia of the report but the lack of genuine third-party scrutiny makes me suspect foul-play. Rather than provide clarity, he has once again failed to step up to the mark.

    After all this time and solely as a nod to all those otherwise intelligent beings, I cannot proclaim this a fraud with certainty. However, I do lament the waste of all that talent. A child could prove that this is real and an independent lab under NDA could take a prep’d and sealed tube and attest to its reality without compromising the IP. The latest test appears to be designed to convince someone but I doubt the target is the scientific community. Without the ability to replicate, too much has to be taken on trust – something Rossi forfeited many lies ago.

    The warning on this site still stands.

    End Update


    So one site devoted to the e-cat is calling it quits…

    While another finds some evidence for things working:


    Lugano Confirmed? Replication Report Published of Hot Cat Device by Russian Researcher Alexander G. Parkhomov
    Posted on December 27, 2014 by Frank Acland • 219 Comments
    Many thanks to ECW reader satviewer for bringing this to our attention. A Russian physicist named Alexander G. Parkhomov of the People’s Friendship University in Moscow published a report, on December 25th in which he describes a replication attempt of a device modeled on the Hot Cat described in the Lugano E-Cat test report, and states that he finds this device can produce more energy than it consumes, with a maximum COP of 2.58.

    The published document seems to be a serious report of an attempt to create an analogue of the Hot Cat. I am at a disadvantage working with a Google translation which might not be fully accurate.

    This could turn out to be a key document in verifying the validity of Andrea Rossi’s Hot Cat. From a quick search, it seems that Alexander Parkhomov is a well published researcher in the field of physics.

    And this one claims to have a cleaner translation along with the actual formula of the ‘fuel’

    Alexander Parkhomov Provides English Translation of his ‘Hot Cat’ Report, Comments
    Posted on December 28, 2014 by Frank Acland • 132 Comments
    I received the following from Professor Alexander G. Parkhomov in response to an email inquiry I made yesterday.

    Dear Frank Acland,

    Really, the transfer into English on the site E-CatWorld was got not quite good. I moderately the abilities tried to correct it.

    As I understood, you are the publisher of this site. It is good to place the text with drawings which I send, instead of the published. As my English isn’t ideal, you can correct the made mistakes.

    As for fuel, there are no secrets isn’t present. Simply powder mix from pure nickel and 10% of Li [AlH4]. The heater is made of a heat-resistant alloy “nichrom”.

    Below is a link to the PDF document that Dr. Parkhomov provided:



    So, if this be true, anyone can now do a test that ought to be repeatable with a known fuel.

    This claims to be a photo of the setup in what looks like an office or living room…

    Making E-Cats in the Garage (or on the Couch)
    Posted on December 29, 2014 by Frank Acland • 14 Comments
    I thought this exchange today here between Mike Ivanov and Mats002 summarized nicely what we might start seeing as a result of the work of Alexander Parkhomov. If you look closely at the picture below from Parkhomov’s report you will see that the experimental setup appears to be in a living room.

    So while we don’t have that ‘commercial shipping’ that was promised, it looks like a “how to DIY” is out there… and the size and complexity isn’t much, from the photo and other postings.

    Though the comments here talk about some of the engineering ‘issues’ with the fuel cell. Hydrogen at high pressure and more…

    This one claims to have an issued patent:
    and uses a different media:

    Miley’s device, seen in the drawing below, does not require an external heat source, relying on the chemical reactions within it to produce the heat energy needed to run the unit. The fuel is ZrO2 (zirconium dioxide) and deuterium pressurized to 413 kilo pascals (60 psi). And unlike Andrea Rossi, Miley’s results should be available to the public since he is working in an academic institution. I tried to find a journal reference to Miley’s experiments using Google Search but was unsuccessful. Maybe it’s a bit premature.

    Being from Feb 2013 there ought to be more / newer out there on it.

  187. omanuel says:

    @E.M. Smith

    Thanks for the correction and the update on LENR.

  188. omanuel says:

    The following corrected version of item #2 and the rest of the posting may better explain fission:

    2. The powerful, short-range forces are almost saturated in the He-4 nucleus a pair of neutron-proton pairs. These pairs of neutron-proton pairs first appeared at the nuclear surface as alpha-emission in Nd-144. The surface of Nd-144 is 30 alpha-particles and the core is 24 neutrons.

    Neutron-repulsion becomes increasingly important in heavier nuclei. The nucleus becomes unstable to spontaneous fission when the nuclear core contains 52 neutrons.

    3. Spontaneous fission first appears in Th-232. The surface of the Th-232 nucleus is 45 alpha-particles and its core contains 52 neutrons.

    4. Neutron-induced fission was discovered in U-235. The surface of the U-235 nucleus is 46 alpha-particles and its core contains 51 neutrons. The addition of one more neutron induced fission of U-235 and destroyed Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945.

    5. Neutron-induced fission also occurs in Pu-239. The surface of the Pu-239 nucleus is 47 alpha-particles and its core is 51 neutrons. The addition of one more neutron induced fission of Pu-239 and destroyed Nagasaki on 9 Aug 1945.

  189. M Simon says:

    Re: 100MW power plants. Steam is very reactive chemically. As is water. It must be chemistry controlled. So you need watch standers on those plants. The number of people required is roughly constant independent of power out. All those LFTRs will be base load plants (~1GWe) with nat gas turbines taking up the slack. Large campus type operations (auto factories etc) are planning natural gas cogeneration for heat and electricity.

    Miley used to be a fusion guy before he went into LENR.

  190. M Simon says:

    BTW if you look at LFTR designs you will note “emergency cooling”. The plants may be intrinsically safe but “emergency cooling” does not give me the warm fuzzies. A scrammed U plant is intrinsically safe. But if the emergency cooling fails before 3 days…. Those decay products HAVE to be cooled. The power is on the order of 3% of max plant output decaying to where natural air convection is sufficient in 3 days. Remember Fukushima. The scram worked fine, until the decay products melted the fuel rods. OK. no fuel rods. But still…

  191. A C Osborn says:

    Thanks for the updates guys.

  192. _Jim says:

    M Simon says 4 June 2014 at 5:16 am
    Much further along? The scam has expanded.

    M Simon about to have much egg on face …

    Rossi & company (via IH) are months into a customer trial/test at cust’s plant and things are going as planned. Can’t speak for every ‘contestant’ in the field but this one is ‘paying out’ as the phrase might be put.

  193. J Martin says:

    I’m not a gambling man, but if I were to gamble on this one I would be putting my money on “if it ever does work it won’t be Rossi that gets the credit”.

  194. M Simon says:

    _Jim says:
    7 April 2015 at 7:10 pm

    We have been hearing about the secret customers for quite some time now. And every new announcement gives believers new hope. You know the deal. “Just you wait. All will be confirmed and you will be sorry you ever doubted.”

    But that is how these scams run. Remember the “Solid State Super Capacitors” with k factors on the order of 100K at high voltage? That scam ran the same way. Until it petered out. There is a pattern.

  195. E.M.Smith says:


    It may be that the need for “emergency cooling” could be regulatory. I remember reading a complaint by a Gen4? guy that they had this entirely passively safe cooling system and STILL had to design in an “emergency cooling” system even though none was needed or really usable. The plant was “walk away safe” yet regulation said…

    While I find your pessimism above a bit much, in fact, the posting was pointing out that two different players claimed 2014 would see clear commercial availability. As it is now 2nd Quarter of 2015, it’s clear that the 2014 statements were a “busted flush”… so at this point I’m not “feeling the love” on LENR.

  196. omanuel says:

    LENR or no LENR, there is no longer any doubt the United States is ruled by deceit, much as George Orwell predicted in the book he started to write in 1946, Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

    The most pressing issue now is how to restore integrity to science, sanity to society and civil rights to citizens.


  197. E.M.Smith says:


    Not just the USA. The EU has a much worse case of it. Australia is showing signs of sanity and recovery, as is Canada, but New Zealand has a ways to go… And then there is Russia… one dictator to rule them all… and the Muslim World that has gone off the deep end into self destructive insanity of wars… all nicely stirred by the UN.

  198. omanuel says:

    Thank you, E. M. Smith.

    Thanks to Steven Goddard’s hard-hitting confrontation of Big Brother’s lies, there are encouraging signs BB is going down now:


  199. M Simon says:

    E. M. Smith,

    You will be surprised to note that the US is waking up and it is in fact the Progressives who are shaking the victim awake in the US. Their fight against Prohibition calls into question their main idea “Government is Good”. How could they fall into such a trap of their own making? Well they have confused strategy with tactics. Their tactics have been to court Blacks. But that – in the case of Prohibition – calls into question their larger goal of inculcating “government is good”.

    Nice discussion of that here: http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=120868#p120868

    Where a commenter calls into question my “obsession”. I explain my strategy. It is obviously not obvious. Good.

    I’m not that up on Gen4. Why do they consider their cooling intrinsically safe? I’d like to give it a look and see if I agree. 3% of full power is nothing to sneeze at. The Gen 1 guys took it very seriously and Fukushima showed that at least with that design it is not something you can ignore. FWIW I’m a Gen 1 Naval Nuke.

Well? Say something!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s