Re: [Vo]:A letter from a DoE official about cold fusion
>From Jed<-Storms; > Jed, just so you are clear in your understanding, the response > by the DOE has NO relationship to what the person who wrote the > reply letter believes. He wrote the OFFICIAL policy of the organization. > The official policy determines how the organization will respond to > proposals and to questions. Investors and industry typically ask the > DOE what they believe. If they say CF is nonsense, no money will be > invested because the career of the person in the company making > such a decision can be put in jeopardy. Therefore, official policy has > a big influence on decisions throughout the system. The DOE, > NASA, and the military have access to the same information yet > they arrive at different official conclusions. Why do you think this is > the case? The reason has no relationship to the evidence supporting > CF claims or to personal beliefs within the organizations. The implication seems to be that person or organization that really wants to know if there is anything of value going on in CF research: DYOHW. (Do Your Own Home Work). It's easy for the cynical part of me to wonder of what value does DOE perform these days. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:A letter from a DoE official about cold fusion
Regarding this topic, Ed Storms wrote to me: Jed, just so you are clear in your understanding, the response by the DOE has NO relationship to what the person who wrote the reply letter believes. He wrote the OFFICIAL policy of the organization. The official policy determines how the organization will respond to proposals and to questions. Investors and industry typically ask the DOE what they believe. If they say CF is nonsense, no money will be invested because the career of the person in the company making such a decision can be put in jeopardy. Therefore, official policy has a big influence on decisions throughout the system. The DOE, NASA, and the military have access to the same information yet they arrive at different official conclusions. Why do you think this is the case? The reason has no relationship to the evidence supporting CF claims or to personal beliefs within the organizations.
Re: [Vo]:A letter from a DoE official about cold fusion
Susan Gipp wrote: > did you have the chance to ask DoE about Rossi's e-cat ? He claimed in his > paper that DoE saw a succesfull demostration back in 2009 ! I did not communicate with the DoE. Someone else did, and they sent me a copy of the response. As you see, it is a form letter written by someone who knows nothing. One of the cold fusion researchers read this and commented: "Thank you for confirmation that DOE doesn't read its own reports." Opdenaker has probably not heard of Rossi, but as it happens, someone else in the DoE has heard of him, and recently wrote an encouraging and optimistic message saying he hopes Rossi is real. I do not think he observed a test. The DoE is a huge organization and people in one department have no idea what is happening in another. Some of them have heard of cold fusion and Rossi, and others clearly have not. I cannot complain about Uncle Sam. Overall, the US government and especially the military has better knowledge of cold fusion than any other institution in the world. It has done more for cold fusion than any other. US corporations have done nothing for cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A letter from a DoE official about cold fusion
Jed did you have the chance to ask DoE about Rossi's e-cat ? He claimed in his paper that DoE saw a succesfull demostration back in 2009 ! 2011/9/20 Jed Rothwell > [This just in, sent by a friend. I don't write to the DoE. I wouldn't > bother.] > > > Monday, September 19, 2011 > > > Dear Mr. Owens: > > > > This is in response to your e-mail message to Secretary Chu dated September > 13, 2011 in which you asked to know where the Department of Energy stands on > “cold fusion.” > > > > In 1989, a review panel that had been charged by the Department concluded > that reports of the experimental results of excess heat from calorimetric > cells did not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will > result from the phenomena attributed to “cold fusion.” To quote the panel, > “Hence, we recommend against the establishment of special programs or > research centers to develop cold fusion.” > > > > In 2004, the Department organized a second review of the field and that > review reached essentially the same conclusion as the 1989 review. The > Department’s Office of Sciences does not provide any funding support for > “cold fusion” research. > > > > Al Opdenaker > > > > > > Fusion Energy Sciences > > Office of Science > > US Department of Energy > > 301-903-4941 > > albert.opdena...@science.doe.gov >
[Vo]:A letter from a DoE official about cold fusion
[This just in, sent by a friend. I don't write to the DoE. I wouldn't bother.] Monday, September 19, 2011 Dear Mr. Owens: This is in response to your e-mail message to Secretary Chu dated September 13, 2011 in which you asked to know where the Department of Energy stands on “cold fusion.” In 1989, a review panel that had been charged by the Department concluded that reports of the experimental results of excess heat from calorimetric cells did not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will result from the phenomena attributed to “cold fusion.” To quote the panel, “Hence, we recommend against the establishment of special programs or research centers to develop cold fusion.” In 2004, the Department organized a second review of the field and that review reached essentially the same conclusion as the 1989 review. The Department’s Office of Sciences does not provide any funding support for “cold fusion” research. Al Opdenaker Fusion Energy Sciences Office of Science US Department of Energy 301-903-4941 albert.opdena...@science.doe.gov
