Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[mixent]

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:20:36 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Rossi claims that the nickel will have to be changed out periodically, every
>six months or so. I doubt it.

If 50 cc is filled with Ni powder, and the density is half that of the solid
metal, then there is enough Ni62 & Ni64 present to supply 5 kW for 207 days,
assuming 5 MeV / reaction.
By replacing it every 6 months, he ensures that he doesn't run out. (Of course
if 30% of Ni was initially converted to Cu then it would last much longer.)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Ron Wormus]

So you don't believe the Ni is transmuted to Cu?
Ron

--On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 10:20 AM -0400 Jed Rothwell 
 wrote:




Rossi claims that the nickel will have to be changed out periodically, every 
six months or so. I
doubt it.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Jed Rothwell]

Akira Shirakawa  wrote:

>
> Not only the powder, it's the whole reactor vessel that has to be replaced
> periodically. In my opinion this is probably also a safety measure in order
> to avoid long-term problems due to prolonged exposure to heat, relatively
> high internal pressures and hydrogen embrittlement . . .


Based on other hydrogen systems, I expect it will last a lot longer than 6
months. It will if it is engineered right. The catalyst should last longer
if they put more into the cell.

It may be that early versions of the device will require more frequent
service and replacement, but I expect that after a while it will go for a
year or two without replacement.

As I recall, the very first jet aircraft engines flew for only 10 hours or
so before extensive overhauls were needed. If you did not overhaul them,
they exploded.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Akira Shirakawa]

On 2011-04-26 16:20, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Rossi claims that the nickel will have to be changed out periodically,
every six months or so. I doubt it.


Not only the powder, it's the whole reactor vessel that has to be 
replaced periodically. In my opinion this is probably also a safety 
measure in order to avoid long-term problems due to prolonged exposure 
to heat, relatively high internal pressures and hydrogen embrittlement, 
and also to avoid potential health hazard due to nickel powder exposure.


However it could also be that, disguised as a safety measure, this might 
be a way to replace something else in the reactor that deteriorates over 
time and that is fundamental for it to properly operate.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

cold fusion is not a free lunch. I is a lunch you are paid to eat.
>

Not me! *It* is a lunch you are paid to eat.

this is how experts describe compact fluorescent light bulbs in Scientific
American. their point was that not only to the balls consume less
electricity but they're much cheaper to install and maintain because they
last so long. In an office building or factory, the main expense associated
with light bulbs is electricity, followed by the cost of replacing them.
Furthermore, the equipment cost of a compact fluorescent light bulb over the
lifetime of the bulb is cheaper than an incandescent bulb.

The same kinds of economics will apply to cold fusion. The equipment itself
will eventually be cheaper than today's equipment. In my book I estimated
the cost of fuel based on the present and likely future cost of heavy water.
I reckoned that the cost of fuel would drop from $2,500 per person in the
U.S. to around $1. The Rossi device uses hydrogen instead of deuterium, so
the cost is so close to zero it is not worth considering.

Rossi claims that the nickel will have to be changed out periodically, every
six months or so. I doubt it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Iverson  wrote:


> Now that's a good idea... and one can start by simply scanning all the
> comment sections of websites where a CF story ran, and summarize
> each skeptic's question or statement, and counter it with the facts.
>

I have looked at previous compilations of skeptical assertions, such as this
one:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

If Rossi succeeds, begins selling units, and it becomes generally known that
cold fusion is real, all of the objections listed here will be voided. They
will be "inoperative" as Nixon's people put it.

There will be a new set of objections. Many are hard to predict now, but I
have heard some of them already:

1. The device has not yet been extensively tested for safety and it may be
dangerous. (I made this objection myself.)

2. Nuclear energy can never be trusted. We should rely only on solar, wind
and other renewables.

3. It will hurt the energy sector of the economy. (This is what the Japanese
government told Mizuno and other researchers as the reason to turn down
their funding.)

4. It will cost jobs.

5. We cannot afford to replace all automobiles and heaters. It will cost too
much. (This contradicts the previous objection that it will cost jobs. If it
costs too much that means it makes too many jobs.)

6. "Giving humanity cold fusion is like giving a machine gun to a baby."
(Rifkin)

I have probably heard others but those are the main ones.

The fossil fuel industry will emphasize #1 and 4 in public, and #3 when
talking to Members of Congress on their payroll; i.e., "if you allow this,
we will not cover your re-election campaign costs."

I think I have heard #5 most often. This is factually incorrect. First it
will not cost anything; it will save money. cold fusion is not a free lunch.
I is a lunch you are paid to eat. Second, we have to replace all cars and
heaters anyway, because they wear out. We will have to replace some of the
factory manufacturing equipment earlier than normal.

In my opinion, the only objection listed here with any merit is #1. This
problem can be rectified by extensive safety testing. This will probably
cost hundreds of millions of dollars but compared to the benefits and cost
savings this is a trivial sum of money. Cold fusion will say this much every
hour or so for the rest of human history.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

>From Mark:

...

>   ... and one can start by simply scanning all the
> comment sections of websites where a CF story ran, and summarize
> each skeptic's question or statement, and counter it with the facts.  Keep
> it short and sweet, with links to references... the list of Rossi's 'clues'
> was put together in a matter of a week... perhaps 10 days.  Wouldn't take
> long to do something similar, and I think I've got the perfect title:
>
>  Cold Fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
>   Fact vs Fiction -- Reality vs Perception

Very good idea: "Keep it short and sweet, with links to references."

One of my biggest posting behavior faults is the fact that I
occasionally don't know when to shut up. The objective can get lost in
a plethora of details - particularly if one feels obliged to correct
every innuendo & false statement - all in a single post. That's what
the links are for - for those who want to follow-up with the details.

...and be relentless. Jed can be pretty good at that.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Mark Iverson]

Jed wrote:
"let us prepare for more trouble"...
and
"I think we should marshal arguments and prepare to present our views, if the 
mass media calls.
Let's face it, they are not likely to get a good initial impression of Rossi, 
from his blog or the
way he talks. The field has suffered from the worst PR imaginable for 22 years, 
with researchers and
others saying the wrong thing and giving the wrong impression time after time. 
For once, I would
like to see us present the facts in a good light. And for once, I would like to 
see us prepared for
an onslaught of opposition, rather than being caught with no response to the 
attacks, or with
statements that seem to give credence to them."
 
Now that's a good idea... and one can start by simply scanning all the comment 
sections of websites
where a CF story ran, and summarize each skeptic's question or statement, and 
counter it with the
facts.  Keep it short and sweet, with links to references... the list of 
Rossi's 'clues' was put
together in a matter of a week... perhaps 10 days.  Wouldn't take long to do 
something similar, and
I think I've got the perfect title:
 
 Cold Fusion or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
  Fact vs Fiction -- Reality vs Perception
 

-Mark

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:42 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right


Mark Iverson  wrote:


Have to disagree with Jed's conclusions as to the extreme level of opposition 
that this will face...


Those are not conclusions so much as worst case scenarios. I think we should be 
prepared for a
continuation of what we have seen for the past 22 years. However much we might 
hope that things will
improve, let us prepare for more trouble.

Years ago, I never would have imagined the extreme opposition at Nature and DoE 
would continue this
long, in the face of experiment such as the ones at SRI, Energetics Tech. or 
the Italian labs, yet
it has continued. It is unabated, as if these experiments never too place. Also 
as if the "60
Minutes" program was never broadcast. The opposition at Nature, and for that 
matter Wikipedia, is as
strong as it was in the weeks after the announcement, when the professors at 
MIT were attacking the
research in phone calls to the Boston papers. Not only is the opposition as 
strong as it was, the
ignorance displayed by major scientists and editors is as powerful as it ever 
was. Like the Bourbon
dynasty, they "learn nothing and forget nothing."



I don't think there is any situation in the history of modern economics that 
can compare with what
is happening...


That is certainly true.

 

Sure, there are powerful centers that don't want to see this technology make it 
to market... but
there are 100 times that many powerful entities that want to have a piece of 
the pie...



I hope so.

But I do not think it would be wise for Rossi, or the rest of us, to count on 
that. I think we
should marshal arguments and prepare to present our views, if the mass media 
calls. Let's face it,
they are not likely to get a good initial impression of Rossi, from his blog or 
the way he talks.
The field has suffered from the worst PR imaginable for 22 years, with 
researchers and others saying
the wrong thing and giving the wrong impression time after time. For once, I 
would like to see us
present the facts in a good light. And for once, I would like to see us 
prepared for an onslaught of
opposition, rather than being caught with no response to the attacks, or with 
statements that seem
to give credence to them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Iverson  wrote:

 Have to disagree with Jed's conclusions as to the extreme level of
> opposition that this will face...
>

Those are not conclusions so much as worst case scenarios. I think we should
be prepared for a continuation of what we have seen for the past 22 years.
However much we might hope that things will improve, let us prepare for more
trouble.

Years ago, I never would have imagined the extreme opposition at Nature and
DoE would continue this long, in the face of experiment such as the ones at
SRI, Energetics Tech. or the Italian labs, yet it *has* continued. It is
unabated, as if these experiments never too place. Also as if the "60
Minutes" program was never broadcast. The opposition at Nature, and for that
matter Wikipedia, is as strong as it was in the weeks after
the announcement, when the professors at MIT were attacking the research in
phone calls to the Boston papers. Not only is the opposition as strong as it
was, the ignorance displayed by major scientists and editors is as powerful
as it ever was. Like the Bourbon dynasty, they "learn nothing and forget
nothing."


I don't think there is any situation in the history of modern economics that
> can compare with what is happening...
>

That is certainly true.



> Sure, there are powerful centers that don't want to see this technology
> make it to market... but there are 100 times that many powerful entities
> that want to have a piece of the pie...
>

I hope so.

But I do not think it would be wise for Rossi, or the rest of us, to count
on that. I think we should marshal arguments and prepare to present our
views, if the mass media calls. Let's face it, they are not likely to get a
good initial impression of Rossi, from his blog or the way he talks. The
field has suffered from the worst PR imaginable for 22 years, with
researchers and others saying the wrong thing and giving the wrong
impression time after time. For once, I would like to see us present the
facts in a good light. And for once, I would like to see us prepared for an
onslaught of opposition, rather than being caught with no response to the
attacks, or with statements that seem to give credence to them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Harry Veeder]

One of the early uses will be in green houses, followed by the construction of 
multistory green houses. With the ability to grow food year round the demand 
for 
fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides will drop, and more food will be grown 
locally.

Harry

From: Mark Iverson 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Mon, April 25, 2011 9:18:53 PM
>Subject: RE: [Vo]:Comic gets it right
>
>
>Have to disagree with Jed's conclusions as to the extreme level of opposition 
>that this will face...
> 
>I don't think there is any situation in the history of modern economics that 
>can 
>compare with what is happening...
> 
>Sure, there are powerful centers that don't want to see this technology make 
>it 
>to market... but there are 100 times that many powerful entities that want to 
>have a piece of the pie... that want to exploit the innumerable opportunities 
>that this globally disruptive technology will have.  If that first 1MW plant 
>starts up, and makes it to operational status, barring some minor glitches, 
>there will be no stopping further development.
>-Mark 
>

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 5:17 PM
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right
>
>
>Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>
>With the exception of the natural gas industry and the centralized electric 
>industry, all cold fusion obstructive forces are unpopular, weak and can be 
>overcome.

I think you are right. I hope you are right!

Still, I expect severe opposition, especially in the early stages. If the 
public 
gets the wrong idea about cold fusion at first -- that it is dangerous or it 
resembles fission -- the public relations campaign may be arduous, and it may 
fail. The opposition will make every effort to give people the wrong idea. That 
fellow Bjorn Lomborg is the most skilled person at doing this I have ever seen. 
His ability to twist facts in support of the unsupportable is awesome. I expect 
they will hire him to lead the charge against cold fusion.

The battle against cold fusion for the last 22 years was almost successful. It 
almost extinguished the research. It was carried out by a handful of academic 
hacks -- Robert Park, Maddox and a few dozen others. They had the quiet backing 
of many professors and editors who are sure that cold fusion is pathological 
science. (They remain as sure of that as they were in March 1989.) They used no 
money, but only their positions of power and ability to publish ad hominem 
attacks in the Washington Post and other mass media. The next battle will be in 
far larger in scale, and I am sure that hundreds of millions will be spent by 
the opposition on advertising campaigns and bribes to members of Congress, mass 
media reporters, and others. It will not be easy to overcome this.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Mark Iverson]

Have to disagree with Jed's conclusions as to the extreme level of opposition 
that this will face...
 
I don't think there is any situation in the history of modern economics that 
can compare with what
is happening...
 
Sure, there are powerful centers that don't want to see this technology make it 
to market... but
there are 100 times that many powerful entities that want to have a piece of 
the pie... that want to
exploit the innumerable opportunities that this globally disruptive technology 
will have.  If that
first 1MW plant starts up, and makes it to operational status, barring some 
minor glitches, there
will be no stopping further development.

-Mark

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 5:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right


Axil Axil  wrote:
 

With the exception of the natural gas industry and the centralized electric 
industry, all cold
fusion obstructive forces are unpopular, weak and can be overcome.


I think you are right. I hope you are right!

Still, I expect severe opposition, especially in the early stages. If the 
public gets the wrong idea
about cold fusion at first -- that it is dangerous or it resembles fission -- 
the public relations
campaign may be arduous, and it may fail. The opposition will make every effort 
to give people the
wrong idea. That fellow Bjorn Lomborg is the most skilled person at doing this 
I have ever seen. His
ability to twist facts in support of the unsupportable is awesome. I expect 
they will hire him to
lead the charge against cold fusion.

The battle against cold fusion for the last 22 years was almost successful. It 
almost extinguished
the research. It was carried out by a handful of academic hacks -- Robert Park, 
Maddox and a few
dozen others. They had the quiet backing of many professors and editors who are 
sure that cold
fusion is pathological science. (They remain as sure of that as they were in 
March 1989.) They used
no money, but only their positions of power and ability to publish ad hominem 
attacks in the
Washington Post and other mass media. The next battle will be in far larger in 
scale, and I am sure
that hundreds of millions will be spent by the opposition on advertising 
campaigns and bribes to
members of Congress, mass media reporters, and others. It will not be easy to 
overcome this.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:


> *With the exception of the natural gas industry and the centralized
> electric industry, all cold fusion obstructive forces are unpopular, weak
> and can be overcome.*
>

I think you are right. I hope you are right!

Still, I expect severe opposition, especially in the early stages. If the
public gets the wrong idea about cold fusion at first -- that it is
dangerous or it resembles fission -- the public relations campaign may be
arduous, and it may fail. The opposition will make every effort to give
people the wrong idea. That fellow Bjorn Lomborg is the most skilled person
at doing this I have ever seen. His ability to twist facts in support of the
unsupportable is awesome. I expect they will hire him to lead the charge
against cold fusion.

The battle against cold fusion for the last 22 years was almost successful.
It almost extinguished the research. It was carried out by a handful of
academic hacks -- Robert Park, Maddox and a few dozen others. They had the
quiet backing of many professors and editors who are sure that cold fusion
is pathological science. (They remain as sure of that as they were in March
1989.) They used no money, but only their positions of power and ability to
publish ad hominem attacks in the Washington Post and other mass media. The
next battle will be in far larger in scale, and I am sure that hundreds of
millions will be spent by the opposition on advertising campaigns and bribes
to members of Congress, mass media reporters, and others. It will not be
easy to overcome this.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Axil Axil]

*Large international oil companies have little power over the oil producing
nation states that they depend upon. They would like nothing better then to
divorce their business plan away from OPEC.*

* *

*When a country gets it in their mind to get off oil, it can happen.
Brazil’s ethanol industry is the prototype for this.*

* *

*In the US, the enemies of decentralized cold fusion are the electric Grid
and wind providers like GE, large centralize gas and electric utilities, the
coal industry, the ethanol lobby, renewables like solar and wind, and
especially the gas production industry.*

* *

*With the exception of the natural gas industry and the centralized electric
industry, all cold fusion obstructive forces are unpopular, weak and can be
overcome.*

* *

* *

* *

* *


On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>
>  The opposition may win this political battle. Cold fusion may never be
>>> allowed.
>>>
>> . . .
>>
>
>  Big Oil's lobbyists could conceivably render the United States
>> irrelevant to the world's energy future, but that's about it.
>>
>
> Yes. Right. I should not have said "never be allowed." I meant "not allowed
> for decades." Or: "only allowed in minimal, unimportant levels" like
> electric automobiles.
>
> I agree that if development is blocked in the US this will soon reduce us
> to the status of a banana republic that imports all important technology
> from other countries.
>
> Obviously, in the long run, if cold fusion succeeds anywhere it will
> succeed everywhere. Something like this cannot be blocked indefinitely. But
> when there is political opposition to a technology, even a very useful and
> profitable one, it can sometimes take a long time to succeed. For example,
> computers and the Internet are still rarely used in many countries. When I
> was in India for ICCF16 I noticed that many stores still use manual
> accounting, without even a cash register. I have not seen since that I was
> in Japan in the 1970s, and once in a U.S. lumber supply company circa 1985.
> In the 1970s even in large banks, the clerks still used abacuses, railroad
> stations still had ticket collectors at every entrance, and many elevators
> at department stores had operators. This was a terrific waste of manpower.
> It was makework or conspicuous consumption -- a way of making the department
> store seem glamorous in a way. Department stores in Japan have been going
> out of business in droves lately because they do stupid things like this.
>
> Even though Japan is an ultrahigh tech country in many ways, it is
> surprising how backward they are with computers in many ways. They count
> election returns by hand on paper ballots which is a very good idea. But
> before every election there is a stock scene on the seven o'clock news in
> which they are going through the books of the politicians and parties
> tallying up expenses. These are huge books printed by computer. People are
> paging through them adding up the numbers on manual electronic calculators.
> (Not abacuses any more -- they would have used 'em in 1975 though, if there
> had been election finance laws back then.) Since the original data is
> obviously kept on computer it would take a few seconds to do this with a
> program, but they insist on spending days doing it manually.
>
> After the earthquake and tsunami it took government agencies weeks to put
> together lists of missing and dead people. At the refugee shelters that were
> walls full of handwritten messages to family members arranged in no order.
> See photo #9 here:
>
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/03/japan-earthquake-two-weeks-later/100034/
>
> These messages say things like: "We're all okay! - Nakamura family." "Has
> anyone seen so-and-so?" "We are staying with our relatives in such-and-such
> town." "Takeshita Fumiko: so-and-so is looking for you and says she will be
> back here tomorrow (the 13) . . ." These messages were needed because the
> cell phone network and the Internet was disabled. People were spending all
> day driving or walking from one shelter to the next. It shows how vulnerable
> high technology can be.
>
> Many of these shelters did not have electricity so it might have been
> difficult to maintain a computer-based method of recording these messages
> and sorting them out by family name, but it could have been done with
> portable computers powered by generators. Or at least, with computers and
> printers that arrange the messages on the walls in alphabetical order by
> name. In the weeks following the time this photo was taken, there were
> computer-generated printed lists of names taped to the walls of the refugee
> centers.
>
> Incidentally, there are photos taken after the war of building walls in
> cities destroyed by bombing with similar messages from family and friends
> looking for survivors. No phone numbers back then, but the content was
> similar.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:


The opposition may win this political battle. Cold fusion may never be
allowed.

. . .



Big Oil's lobbyists could conceivably render the United States
irrelevant to the world's energy future, but that's about it.


Yes. Right. I should not have said "never be allowed." I meant "not 
allowed for decades." Or: "only allowed in minimal, unimportant levels" 
like electric automobiles.


I agree that if development is blocked in the US this will soon reduce 
us to the status of a banana republic that imports all important 
technology from other countries.


Obviously, in the long run, if cold fusion succeeds anywhere it will 
succeed everywhere. Something like this cannot be blocked indefinitely. 
But when there is political opposition to a technology, even a very 
useful and profitable one, it can sometimes take a long time to succeed. 
For example, computers and the Internet are still rarely used in many 
countries. When I was in India for ICCF16 I noticed that many stores 
still use manual accounting, without even a cash register. I have not 
seen since that I was in Japan in the 1970s, and once in a U.S. lumber 
supply company circa 1985. In the 1970s even in large banks, the clerks 
still used abacuses, railroad stations still had ticket collectors at 
every entrance, and many elevators at department stores had operators. 
This was a terrific waste of manpower. It was makework or conspicuous 
consumption -- a way of making the department store seem glamorous in a 
way. Department stores in Japan have been going out of business in 
droves lately because they do stupid things like this.


Even though Japan is an ultrahigh tech country in many ways, it is 
surprising how backward they are with computers in many ways. They count 
election returns by hand on paper ballots which is a very good idea. But 
before every election there is a stock scene on the seven o'clock news 
in which they are going through the books of the politicians and parties 
tallying up expenses. These are huge books printed by computer. People 
are paging through them adding up the numbers on manual electronic 
calculators. (Not abacuses any more -- they would have used 'em in 1975 
though, if there had been election finance laws back then.) Since the 
original data is obviously kept on computer it would take a few seconds 
to do this with a program, but they insist on spending days doing it 
manually.


After the earthquake and tsunami it took government agencies weeks to 
put together lists of missing and dead people. At the refugee shelters 
that were walls full of handwritten messages to family members arranged 
in no order. See photo #9 here:


http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/03/japan-earthquake-two-weeks-later/100034/

These messages say things like: "We're all okay! - Nakamura family." 
"Has anyone seen so-and-so?" "We are staying with our relatives in 
such-and-such town." "Takeshita Fumiko: so-and-so is looking for you and 
says she will be back here tomorrow (the 13) . . ." These messages were 
needed because the cell phone network and the Internet was disabled. 
People were spending all day driving or walking from one shelter to the 
next. It shows how vulnerable high technology can be.


Many of these shelters did not have electricity so it might have been 
difficult to maintain a computer-based method of recording these 
messages and sorting them out by family name, but it could have been 
done with portable computers powered by generators. Or at least, with 
computers and printers that arrange the messages on the walls in 
alphabetical order by name. In the weeks following the time this photo 
was taken, there were computer-generated printed lists of names taped to 
the walls of the refugee centers.


Incidentally, there are photos taken after the war of building walls in 
cities destroyed by bombing with similar messages from family and 
friends looking for survivors. No phone numbers back then, but the 
content was similar.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 04/25/2011 02:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> ... Big oil, big coal, nuclear power, wind power and other vested
> interests will wage all-out political war, saturating members of
> congress
>
> The opposition may win this political battle. Cold fusion may never be
> allowed.

There are something on the order of 200 countries on Earth.  The United
States is just one of them, and its influence is limited.  It still has
the biggest economy, but not by much, and in a few more years it will be
in second place.  In terms of industrial production it's slipped very
badly since the 1950's, with much of the most sophisticated work being
done in the Orient.  The largest energy consumer on Earth, and
consequently the largest market for a new energy source, is now China,
not the United States.  The U.S. is falling rapidly "out of the loop".

Today, the United States is an overwhelming giant only in terms of its
strength in arms.  Unless you suppose the U.S. would go to war to stop
some other country from developing cold fusion, I don't think it's
plausible that a group of American lobbyists talking to American
congressmen could prevent or even significantly slow its development,
once there's a clear path forward.

Big Oil's lobbyists could conceivably render the United States
irrelevant to the world's energy future, but that's about it.

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Jed Rothwell]

I assume the Rossi device is producing cold fusion, the same as the Pd-D 
systems. Call it what you will, it is what it is. If it produces 
radioactive byproducts such as tritium, that fact will soon be known. I 
expect many laboratories will soon look closely and learn more about it 
than we have learned in the last 22 years. This will happen because at 
last they have a system they can turn on at will that produces an easily 
measured effect, and because there will an avalanche of research 
funding, starting any day now.


If cold fusion is dangerous for any reason, everyone will soon know it. 
The decision makers and the public will have to deal with it. This will 
be a political decision. The NRC alone will not be given this 
responsibility. It is a small, powerless agency, the lapdog of the 
nuclear fission industry. Even it opposes cold fusion, the Congress or 
the President can sweep it aside in moment. They can even sweep aside 
the DoE, which has more funding and influence. They will sweep aside 
opposition if the public demands it. If the public takes no action, than 
a handful of academic nobodies such as Robert Park will continue to 
block development indefinitely.


At present these academic nobodies are acting on their own. I think it 
is unlikely that big oil has any knowledge that cold fusion exists. Once 
it becomes generally known that it does exist, I predict that one of the 
largest political brouhahas of all time will commence. Big oil, big 
coal, nuclear power, wind power and other vested interests will wage 
all-out political war, saturating members of congress and the mass media 
with money. They will hire people such as Park of course. Industry 
shills such as Bjorn Lomborg will jump on the bandwagon, making strange 
bedfellows with Rifkin and others who oppose new technology on general 
principles.


The opposition may win this political battle. Cold fusion may never be 
allowed. But we cannot know the outcome. It depends on people's 
opinions, feelings, and free will, and these are the most complex and 
unpredictable things in the known universe.


I think the most powerful force in favor of cold fusion will be money. 
Here is the single most important message we can communicate to the public:


"In the U.S. we pay $2,500 per person per year for fuel. That's taking 
into account all of the energy we use as individuals, plus the energy 
the government and industry uses on a per-capita basis. With cold fusion 
we will pay nothing. Zero. Zip. Cold fusion will save you $2,500 per 
year for the rest of your life. If you tell the Congress and the 
President to allow cold fusion to forward, it will quickly replace oil 
and all sources of fuel. But, if you do nothing, Big Oil will stop this 
from happening. So the choice is yours. You can stand by and do nothing, 
and keep paying $2,500, or you can have all the energy you want for 
nothing. Which will it be?"


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:48 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:

> Adding more to the goose chase, let us not forget the fact that there
> are those who would like to denigrate the word "fusion", and replace
> it with what they believe is a more accurate term: "nuclear reaction."

This one leaves no doubt:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1871#comic

> Perhaps if we all start calling the process a "nuclear reaction" the
> Underwriter's Laboratory will feel less threatened (because it's not
> really "fusion") ... and Wall Mart can start marketing the Rossi-Tea
> Pot sooner.

He's from Italy.  That would be an expresso machine.

> Clear as mud?

Oink!  Luvit!

T

Re: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Jones sez:

...

> OTOH - we keep getting back to the problem of NRC approval,
> or even UL approval. With proved particle detection and
> real fusion, then we are back to being years away from
> having the device approved in the USA.

Adding more to the goose chase, let us not forget the fact that there
are those who would like to denigrate the word "fusion", and replace
it with what they believe is a more accurate term: "nuclear reaction."
Perhaps if we all start calling the process a "nuclear reaction" the
Underwriter's Laboratory will feel less threatened (because it's not
really "fusion") ... and Wall Mart can start marketing the Rossi-Tea
Pot sooner.

Clear as mud?

Making society richer and safer through the skills of political science! ;-)

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Jones Beene]

This  cartoon says it all, no?

 

However, one contrarian slant on Jed's comment about particle detection, is
that this may not be a net "positive" . although yes, it would literally
crush skepticism. For that we would all be grateful.

 

OTOH - we keep getting back to the problem of NRC approval, or even UL
approval. With proved particle detection and real fusion, then we are back
to being years away from having the device approved in the USA.

 

The only good news is that rapid acceptance in Greece and a few Euro
countries, along with Russia and all of Asia - should effectively lower oil
prices by two-thirds! Supply and demand at work.

 

In that regard we will benefit here in a backdoor way.

 

Jones

From: Esa Ruoho 

 

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics

&id=1868#comic

 

[Vo]:Comic gets it right

[Esa Ruoho]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1868#comic