RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Mark Iverson]

He has???  Wow, that's very good news... 
Do you know if he's just setting up, or have they had this lab up and running 
for awhile?  
 
Have they had any encouraging results, like exploding experiments!  :-)
 
You were right the first time... "Blowhards".  
Actually, that's way too gentle a term for people like Park and Garwin.
 
Thanks for the good news about Dr.D!

-Mark

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 1:01 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released


Mark Iverson wrote:



Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition.

No, I disagree.  Has he set up a lab and done some experiments?  No.


Yes, he has now. That's my point.

I am pleased he has!




My point was that at the time of the 60-Minutes piece, he most certainly was 
NOT . . .


That's true. But that's not how our friends the skeptics see it.




Again, its a perception battle, and the goal is not to convince the diehard 
(pathological) skeptics
like Park; its to persuade the average Science or Nature reader, the average 
researcher . . .


That's true, and it is important. There is no point in trying to convince the 
blowhard . . . I mean
diehard skeptics.

- Jed


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.69/2508 - Release Date: 11/17/09 
07:40:00

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Mark & Jed sez:

...

>> Again, its a perception battle, and the goal is not to convince the diehard
>> (pathological) skeptics like Park; its to persuade the average Science or
>> Nature reader, the average researcher . . .
>
> That's true, and it is important. There is no point in trying to convince
> the blowhard . . . I mean diehard skeptics.

This deserves to be repeated. The natural curiosity of the average
researcher and scientist is where future breakthroughs will come from.
All they need are convenient ways to access accurate information so
that they can arrive at their own conclusions.

It's pointless to waste valuable energy on the skeptics, or as they
say: casting pearls before swine.

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

RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Iverson wrote:


Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition.

No, I disagree.  Has he set up a lab and done some experiments?  No.


Yes, he has now. That's my point.

I am pleased he has!


My point was that at the time of the 60-Minutes piece, he most 
certainly was NOT . . .


That's true. But that's not how our friends the skeptics see it.


Again, its a perception battle, and the goal is not to convince the 
diehard (pathological) skeptics like Park; its to persuade the 
average Science or Nature reader, the average researcher . . .


That's true, and it is important. There is no point in trying to 
convince the blowhard . . . I mean diehard skeptics.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Mark Iverson]

My definition of an insider is one who has at least done some 
experimental/theoretical research 
on the subject; LENR in this case.

Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition.

No, I disagree.  Has he set up a lab and done some experiments?  No.  Has he 
delivered a theoretical
paper at a conference?  No.
ALL he did was a personal peer-review.  That's not 'research'.  Yes, some will 
use any supportive
statements to label a person as an insider... so what.
 
My point was that at the time of the 60-Minutes piece, he most certainly was 
NOT, and that's why his
assessment, along with being done on 60-Mins to reach a much larger audience, 
had the impact it did.
He came in as a skeptic, but did, in a sense, an individual peer-review; did 
his own calculations to
make sure the math was correct, check for good experimental process, etc., and 
came to a conclusion
based on data... what any true scientist would do.  So what if he is now 
considered an insider...he
had the intended affect. Now get a small group of expert OUTSIDERS to do the 
same thing and issue
their conclusions... not DOE; they couldn't put together an objective panel if 
their lives depended
on it. 
 
Again, its a perception battle, and the goal is not to convince the diehard 
(pathological) skeptics
like Park; its to persuade the average Science or Nature reader, the average 
researcher, who then
writes or calls the journal editors and expresses their concern that a major 
breakthru is being held
back because of political/egotistical reasons.  When they realize this could be 
a clean source of
power... what scientist doesn't want to wean the world off of oil?  
Duncan/60-Mins, and now this DIA
Report increases the pressure on journal editors to give LENR papers a fair 
chance at peer-review...
and that's exactly what's needed at this point in time.

-Mark

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released


Mark Iverson wrote:



Jed, then you've got some extremely liberal definition of 'insider'!


I was using the skeptics' definition. As I said, one of them called Duncan a 
"charlatan" because he
concluded that Energetics Technology is correctly measuring 0.8 W in, ~20 W 
out. Any sane expert in
calorimetry would reach this conclusion, but the skeptics say anyone who does 
becomes an "insider"
and loses all credibility.




My definition of an insider is one who has at least done some 
experimental/theoretical research on
the subject; LENR in this case.


Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition.

The people who consulted in this review are listed on p. 6. Some of them are 
not known to have
contributed to cold fusion but they are knowledgeable about the field and that 
makes them "insiders"
as some people define it. This devolves into a "no true Scotsman" logical 
fallacy.




Agreed, some may now refer to Dr. Duncan as somewhat of an insider, but his 
single assessment had
MORE of a positive impact than anything that I can think of... it drastically 
reduced the "negative
aura" surrounding LENR...


I would not say "drastically." There is still a lot of resistance and no good 
press in the mass
media. It has had a welcome effect, and it has opened doors. That was mainly 
because it was
broadcast on CBS. Gerischer was as qualified and prestigious as Duncan, and his 
review is even more
positive than Duncan's, but it had no impact because no one has ever heard of 
it, apart from people
who download his paper. Which is here, by the way:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf

- Jed


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.69/2508 - Release Date: 11/17/09 
07:40:00

RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Iverson wrote:


Jed, then you've got some extremely liberal definition of 'insider'!


I was using the skeptics' definition. As I said, one of them called 
Duncan a "charlatan" because he concluded that Energetics Technology 
is correctly measuring 0.8 W in, ~20 W out. Any sane expert in 
calorimetry would reach this conclusion, but the skeptics say anyone 
who does becomes an "insider" and loses all credibility.



My definition of an insider is one who has at least done some 
experimental/theoretical research on the subject; LENR in this case.


Duncan has now become an insider, by that definition.

The people who consulted in this review are listed on p. 6. Some of 
them are not known to have contributed to cold fusion but they are 
knowledgeable about the field and that makes them "insiders" as some 
people define it. This devolves into a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.



Agreed, some may now refer to Dr. Duncan as somewhat of an insider, 
but his single assessment had MORE of a positive impact than 
anything that I can think of... it drastically reduced the "negative 
aura" surrounding LENR...


I would not say "drastically." There is still a lot of resistance and 
no good press in the mass media. It has had a welcome effect, and it 
has opened doors. That was mainly because it was broadcast on CBS. 
Gerischer was as qualified and prestigious as Duncan, and his review 
is even more positive than Duncan's, but it had no impact because no 
one has ever heard of it, apart from people who download his paper. 
Which is here, by the way:


http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Steven Krivit]

Well...what I said is my view of the effect of the documentall the 
players in this have different goals and objectivesBarnhart's job is to 
scan the horizon and warn other people in DoD of potential, uh, issues.


...the "co-authors" of the document have different goals objectives, as you 
imply...


the science is strong enough now that, yes indeed, with a good conduit, it 
can put up a very good fight


At 11:37 PM 11/16/2009, you wrote:
So the Intelligence community of the DoD looked into LENR, decided 
that there's enough sound scientific evidence to suggest that LENR just 
might be real, and because of the most extraordinary ramifications if it 
is real, is, with this report, warning government agencies and the 
scientific mainstream to WAKE THE F*CK UP or GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR 
A$$!  ???


Or, someone on the inside found a conduit thru which to fight the 
'perception'...

RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Mark Iverson]

So the Intelligence community of the DoD looked into LENR, decided that 
there's enough sound
scientific evidence to suggest that LENR just might be real, and because of the 
most extraordinary
ramifications if it is real, is, with this report, warning government agencies 
and the scientific
mainstream to WAKE THE F*CK UP or GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR A$$!  ???
 
Or, someone on the inside found a conduit thru which to fight the 
'perception'...

-Mark

  _  

From: Steven Krivit [mailto:stev...@newenergytimes.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 11:25 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released


At 05:43 PM 11/16/2009, you wrote:


Terry,
Good point regarding what might be in the classified report. These authors are 
all very likely to
have confidential information of their own research and consulting with 
industry. I think their tone
reflects something they know but can't say. I think they correctly highlight 
just how far behind the
US has fallen and that our data and talent is being exploited by other 
countries.Basically they told
our government to put up or shut up.. 


in my view, I see it as they told our government to get their heads out of the 
sand...



and it was long overdue! 
Regards
Fran
 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.67/2506 - Release Date: 11/16/09 
07:43:00

RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Steven Krivit]

At 05:43 PM 11/16/2009, you wrote:

Terry,
Good point regarding what might be in the classified report. These authors 
are all very likely to have confidential information of their own research 
and consulting with industry. I think their tone reflects something they 
know but can’t say. I think they correctly highlight just how far behind 
the US has fallen and that our data and talent is being exploited by other 
countries…Basically they told our government to put up or shut up….


in my view, I see it as they told our government to get their heads out of 
the sand...



and it was long overdue!
Regards
Fran

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Horace Heffner]

On Nov 16, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:



On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Esa Ruoho wrote:


yeah. this is pretty blatant.


13 November 2009
Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear  
Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance


The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assesses with high confidence  
that if LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions) can produce nuclear- 
origin energy at room temperatures, this disruptive technology  
could revolutionize energy production and storage, since nuclear  
reactions release millions of times more energy per unit mass than  
do any known chemical fuel.




Note the word "if"in the sentence above.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/



On Nov 16, 2009, at 8:03 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

[snipping the only relevant part]



At 06:19 PM 11/16/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Esa Ruoho wrote:
The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assesses with high  
confidence that if LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions) can  
produce nuclear-origin energy at room temperatures, this  
disruptive technology could revolutionize energy production and  
storage, since nuclear reactions release millions of times more  
energy per unit mass than do any known chemical fuel.



Note the word "if"in the sentence above.


Absolutely. The report does have "if" in there,


[snip irrelevant blather]



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Mark Iverson]

Jed, then you've got some extremely liberal definition of 'insider'!
 
My definition of an insider is one who has at least done some 
experimental/theoretical research on
the subject; LENR in this case.
 
Robert Duncan is an expert in calorimetry, but he most definitely is NOT and 
insider!!!  
Insiders are most likely also experts (duh!), and they are usually viewed as 
not objective since
they are 'invested' in the research, thus, their opinions, although most 
knowledgeable about the
matter, do not carry as much weight as an expert who has not actually done any 
research in the
field.  Its all about perceptions at this point in time...
 
As I stated, "I would hope that at least some of the experts were people who 
have never done any
LENR research."
 
The fact that Dr. Duncan was an expert but not an insider is what gave his 
assessment such a strong
impact, not only on the media, but more importantly on the scientific world.  
What we need are more
experts, NOT insiders, making independent assessments as did Dr.Duncan. But 
that takes guts, and
integrity, now doesn't it... kudos to Dr. Duncan.
 
Agreed, some may now refer to Dr. Duncan as somewhat of an insider, but his 
single assessment had
MORE of a positive impact than anything that I can think of... it drastically 
reduced the "negative
aura" surrounding LENR... win the perception battle, and all else will begin to 
follow a more
rational scientific process.
 
This report, although not a dam buster, is another major fracture/leak in the 
skeptics denial dam...
lets all hope that Park and others are in its path when the dam finally bursts! 
 ;^)

-Mark




  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released


Mark Iverson wrote:

> However, if by "experts" they mean Mosier-Boss, McKubre, etc., then less so 
> since these people,
altho certainly experts, are also insiders. 
> I would hope that at least some of the experts were people who have never 
> done any LENR
research...

I understand where you are coming from, but this line of thinking soon leads to 
absurd conclusions.
The only people qualified to make a serious analysis of cold fusion have either 
done the research,
or they have done something similar. Robert Duncan, for example, is an expert 
in calorimetry, which
is why CBS asked him to evaluate it. Heinz Gerischer was an expert in 
electrochemistry which is why
he was invited to ICCF-2 as an observer. People with their level of knowledge 
look at the data for a
few days and they conclude, as Gerischer put it: "there is now undoubtedly 
overwhelming indications
that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys." (Britz is the only 
expert I know who was not
convinced by the data, and I do not think his reasons for rejecting it are 
rational.)

The fact is, when a sane, unbiased, qualified expert looks closely at cold 
fusion he is inevitably
persuaded, because the indications really are overwhelming. And the moment that 
expert is persuaded
he transmogrifies into an insider! Certainly in the eyes of the "skeptics" he 
loses all credibility.
A well known skeptic called Duncan a "charlatan" when all he had done was 
evaluate the data to reach
a conclusion. Now that Duncan has published SEM photos of material and attended 
a conference, he is
well and truly an "insider" and therefore -- by these rules -- he is beyond the 
pale. Where does
that end? How many scientists have to be convinced before we say that Britz and 
a few others left
out in the cold are the real weirdos who lack credibility?

It is a bit like a game of "sardines" (reverse hide-and-go-seek) where every 
time a player finds the
person who is 'it' that player disappears from the game. There are already 
thousands of scientists
who have observed the cold fusion effect, and -- judging by the reader response 
at LENR-CANR.org --
tens of thousands who have read papers and are certain the effect is real. Are 
they all "insiders"
now? Have they all magically ceased to be reliable? Duncan was completely 
reliable and highly
trusted before CBS called him. Is he now persona non grata in science, and if 
so, why?

The whole notion of insiders and outsiders has no place in science. And in fact 
there are no
insiders in cold fusion as far as I can tell. Cold fusion is supposedly insular 
but it sure don't
seem that way. On the contrary, most researchers are competitive and make 
little effort to assist
one another, and no effort to cover for others or hide other people's mistakes. 
Their backbiting is
often as nasty, and often as unfounded, as the skeptical attacks.

- Jed



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.67/2506 - Release Date: 11/16/09 
07:43:00

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:19 PM 11/16/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Esa Ruoho wrote:
The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assesses with high confidence 
that if LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions) can produce 
nuclear-origin energy at room temperatures, this disruptive 
technology could revolutionize energy production and storage, since 
nuclear reactions release millions of times more energy per unit 
mass than do any known chemical fuel.



Note the word "if"in the sentence above.


Absolutely. The report does have "if" in there, but the overall sense 
of the report is that the science is real, i.e., there are low energy 
nuclear reactions, but that the technological feasibility of 
*practical* energy production has not been shown. I gloss that 
sentence to mean that.


I.e., they *do* produce "nuclear origin energy at room temperatures," 
though the temperature increases locally and substantially (I mean on 
the submicron scale and transiently), but the condition in the 
sentence really means "can produce ... energy ... at practical levels 
and in a practical way." Suppose a lot of energy is sometimes 
produced, but the amount isn't controllable, the process is too 
chaotic. Oops. That could make it impractical. Or suppose the 
supplies and energy invested are too expensive, and the payoff is low 
efficiency. I.e., you always get excess heat, but unless the excess 
can be produced at a high enough level, the only utility would be 
some extra heat, and the process and materials and investment might 
be too much. An Arata cold fusion hot water heater would work, saving 
energy, but the cost of the palladium would be fierce, and how often 
would the material have to be reprocessed? You'd get nearly all the 
palladium back and hearly all of the deuterium, but there are 
significant costs associated with these actions


I do not consider it a demonstrated thing that practical LENR 
applications are known; the most likely candidate could be nuclear 
decontamination, not using what the reprort implies, but biological 
agents as reported by Vyosotskii. So right away, if it was up to me, 
I'd make sure that Vyosotskii's work was replicated. I'd send 
representatives to Russia to work with him. He's credible, even 
though what he reports is incredible. I find it remarkable that the 
report mentions Vyosotskii's search for magnetic monopole involvement 
in LENR, which strikes me as much more speculative than his work with 
biological transmutation and decontamination (acceleration of nuclear decay).


If LENR is real, there is no reason to believe that proteins couldn't 
manage to catalyze it, particularly if there is a reasonable 
experimental report indicating it. And there is. That damn Mossbauer 
spectrogram, got me in lots of trouble at Wikipedia. It's conclusive, 
you have to understand something about such spectrograms to 
understand why that is such a spectacular result. 

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Iverson wrote:

> However, if by "experts" they mean Mosier-Boss, McKubre, etc., then less
so since these people, altho certainly experts, are also insiders.
> I would hope that at least some of the experts were people who have never
done any LENR research...

I understand where you are coming from, but this line of thinking soon leads
to absurd conclusions. The only people qualified to make a serious analysis
of cold fusion have either done the research, or they have done something
similar. Robert Duncan, for example, is an expert in calorimetry, which is
why CBS asked him to evaluate it. Heinz Gerischer was an expert in
electrochemistry which is why he was invited to ICCF-2 as an observer.
People with their level of knowledge look at the data for a few days and
they conclude, as Gerischer put it: "there is now undoubtedly overwhelming
indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys." (Britz
is the only expert I know who was not convinced by the data, and I do not
think his reasons for rejecting it are rational.)

The fact is, when a sane, unbiased, qualified expert looks closely at cold
fusion he is inevitably persuaded, because the indications really are
overwhelming. And the moment that expert is persuaded he transmogrifies into
an insider! Certainly in the eyes of the "skeptics" he loses all
credibility. A well known skeptic called Duncan a "charlatan" when all he
had done was evaluate the data to reach a conclusion. Now that Duncan has
published SEM photos of material and attended a conference, he is well and
truly an "insider" and therefore -- by these rules -- he is beyond the pale.
Where does that end? How many scientists have to be convinced before we say
that Britz and a few others left out in the cold are the real weirdos who
lack credibility?

It is a bit like a game of "sardines" (reverse hide-and-go-seek) where every
time a player finds the person who is 'it' that player disappears from the
game. There are already thousands of scientists who have observed the cold
fusion effect, and -- judging by the reader response at LENR-CANR.org --
tens of thousands who have read papers and are certain the effect is real.
Are they all "insiders" now? Have they all magically ceased to be reliable?
Duncan was completely reliable and highly trusted before CBS called him. Is
he now persona non grata in science, and if so, why?

The whole notion of insiders and outsiders has no place in science. And in
fact there are no insiders in cold fusion as far as I can tell. Cold fusion
is supposedly insular but it sure don't seem that way. On the contrary, most
researchers are competitive and make little effort to assist one another,
and no effort to cover for others or hide other people's mistakes. Their
backbiting is often as nasty, and often as unfounded, as the skeptical
attacks.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:56 PM 11/16/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:

This refers to:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/2009DIA-08-0911-003.pdf

That is an astounding document. Even I think it is a little over-the-top.


I actually don't think so. It seems to me to be a sober assessment. 
They don't assign a probability to the possibility of commercial or 
other applications. I do think the probability of useful explosive 
devices is a bit low, but you never can tell.


So what should come out of this report? Funding for basic research, 
pretty much the same as the two DoE reports actually recommended. 
Maybe more than that, perhaps. A crash program with hundreds of 
millions of dollars or billions? Probably not yet. Rather, 
exploration to see if something worth spending that kind of money on 
might be feasible.


On the other hand, look at how much money was dumped into hot fusion 
research, without any proof of practicality!

RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Mark Iverson]

I think this is an important statement...
 

 
However, if by "experts" they mean Mosier-Boss, McKubre, etc., then less so 
since these people,
altho certainly experts, are also insiders.  
I would hope that at least some of the experts were people who have never done 
any LENR research...

-Mark

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 2:57 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released


This refers to:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/2009DIA-08-0911-003.pdf

That is an astounding document. Even I think it is a little over-the-top.

- Jed


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.67/2506 - Release Date: 11/16/09 
07:43:00


<>

RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jed:

...

> They also said the Soviet Threat was wildly overblown. They said this in
1964,
> but few people believed them back then. The full extent of the
exaggerations did
> not become clear to everyone until after the cold war ended. It works both
ways;
> the Soviets were much more afraid of the U.S. than they should have been.

Fascinating,

I realize I'm getting off-topic here, but I often wonder about the North
Korean "threat". Here we have North Korea's fearless leader, Kim jong il,
and his regime which by all accounts has been difficult to parse by our
standards of rationale.  One assumes the regime knows full well that if they
were to do something naughty their reign of power would be toppled in short
order. Of course this would quickly result in a very upset China as it gets
the brunt of the fallout as hoards of scared and starving refugees start
crashing their borders. I tend to think most of the N. Korean rhetoric is
for private consumption rather than for our ears. The fear of imminent
invasion often seem to play a big part of making sure the masses pay little
attention of the "regime" behind the curtain.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/quotes

Regards

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

.

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote

> It works both ways; the Soviets were much more afraid of the U.S. than
they should have been.

Although "The Men Who Stare at Goats" is a movie satire, it has much truth.
The French hoaxed the Soviets in telling them that the US was involved in
Psi experiments trying to communicate with a nuclear sub under the north
polar ice using telepathy.  The Soviets began their own Psi research in
response.  Upon hearing of the Soviet research, the US was compelled to
begin a real Psi research program.  Hence project Scangate.

There must not be a Psi research gap!!

LOL!

Terry

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

"They said the top secret government information was seldom more accurate or
informative than what is published in the New York Times."

I meant broad intelligence evaluations of policy issues and estimates of the
intentions of leaders. Obviously there was military intelligence far more
detailed and accurate than anything the newspapers had access to! For
example, a U.S. submarine tapped an undersea Soviet military phone line.
This was described in the book "Blind Man's Bluff."

The DIA document says: "This assessment is based on analysis of a wide body
of intelligence reporting, most of which is open source information
including scientific briefings, peer-reviewed technical journals,
international scientific conference proceedings, interviews with scientific
experts . . ." As you see, nearly everything in the document is available at
LENR-CANR. And everything at LENR-CANR comes from somewhere else. We have no
original material except for a few things like my book. So the truth is out
there. You just have to look.

My late spook friends said that most of the useful intelligence about Russia
in the 1950s came from freely available documents published in Russia. Not
spies or purloined secret documents. The Soviet government lied through its
teeth about a wide range of subjects, such as how many tons of potatoes they
produced. But if you looked carefully through enough books and official
publications, you could make a reasonably accurate assessment of potato
production. For example, you could extrapolate from vodka production plus
independently sourced info on people's diets.

Needless to say, the Internet and Google makes intelligence far easier than
it was back then. For everyone. I just read a new book by J. Adelstein
"Tokyo Vice" which describes how Japanese gangsters use Google alerts in
English to keep track of U.S. press coverage of their activities.

That's a pretty good book, by the way. It is recommend by Alex Kerr and Taro
Greenfield, who know what they are talking about. Kerr is one of the leading
Japan experts of our time.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Jed Rothwell]

Fran wrote:

> Good point regarding what might be in the classified report. These authors
> are all very likely to have confidential information of their own research
> and consulting with industry.
>
Honestly, I doubt it. I doubt there is much important information about cold
fusion that I do not know, or that you cannot find at LENR-CANR.org plus the
conference proceedings. I am aware of a few details about experiments that
have not yet been published yet, but that is only because it takes a while
to write papers. People are not holding back. I have heard some
"proprietary" information over the years, but in most cases it has been of
little use.

My parents were posted to the U.S. Embassy in Russia during WWII, so when I
was a kid I knew some Soviet experts and people who had been in intelligence
agencies during WWII and the early part of the cold war. They said the top
secret government information was seldom more accurate or informative than
what is published in the New York Times. In "Dr. Strangelove" there is an
exchange about the doomsday machine:

President Merkin Muffley: This is preposterous. I've never approved of
anything like that.
Ambassador de Sadesky: Our source was the New York Times.

One of ex-spys I knew said "that sounds about right."

They also said the Soviet Threat was wildly overblown. They said this in
1964, but few people believed them back then. The full extent of the
exaggerations did not become clear to everyone until after the cold war
ended. It works both ways; the Soviets were much more afraid of the U.S.
than they should have been.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Terry Blanton]

The University of Utah's business consultant, Ira Magaziner, warned of such
a happening in the 1989 Congressional hearings.

Terry

On 11/16/09, Frank  wrote:
>
>  Terry,
>
> Good point regarding what might be in the classified report. These authors
> are all very likely to have confidential information of their own research
> and consulting with industry. I think their tone reflects something they
> know but can’t say. I think they correctly highlight just how far behind the
> US has fallen and that our data and talent is being exploited by other
> countries…Basically they told our government to put up or shut up…. and it
> was long overdue!
>
> Regards
>
> Fran
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 5:45 PM
> *To:* New Energy Times; vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released
>
>
>
> It makes one wonder what might be contained in a classified report!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Terry
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, New Energy Times <
> no-re...@newenergytimes.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *Monday, 16 November, 2009*
>
>
>
> Defense Analysis Report 
> #DIA-08-0911-003<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7604971&msgid=214502&act=J3DB&c=229442&admin=0&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Fnews%2F2009%2F2009DIA-08-0911-003.pdf>
>
> - Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions
> Increasing and Gaining Acceptance -
>
> A New Energy Times analysis will follow either on our blog or in the next
> issue of New Energy Times.
>
>
>
>
>
> This message was sent from New Energy Times to hohlr...@gmail.com. It was
> sent from: New Energy Times, 369-B 3rd St. #556 , San Rafael, CA 94901. You
> can modify/update your subscription via the link below.
>
> Email Marketing by <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186>
> [image: iContact - Try It Free!] <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186>
>
>
>
> To be removed click here
> <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=7604971&l=9436&s=J3DB&m=214502&c=229442>
>
> <http://app.icontact.com/icp/sub/forward?m=214502&s=7604971&c=J3DB&cid=229442>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Frank]

Terry,

Good point regarding what might be in the classified report. These authors
are all very likely to have confidential information of their own research
and consulting with industry. I think their tone reflects something they
know but can't say. I think they correctly highlight just how far behind the
US has fallen and that our data and talent is being exploited by other
countries.Basically they told our government to put up or shut up.. and it
was long overdue! 

Regards

Fran

 

  _  

From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 5:45 PM
To: New Energy Times; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

 

It makes one wonder what might be contained in a classified report!

Thanks!

Terry

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, New Energy Times
 wrote:

 

 

Monday, 16 November, 2009 

 

Defense Analysis Report #DIA-08-0911-003
<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7604971&msgid=214502&act=J3DB&c=2
29442&admin=0&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fnewenergytimes.com%2Fv2%2Fnews%2F2009
%2F2009DIA-08-0911-003.pdf> 

- Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions
Increasing and Gaining Acceptance -

A New Energy Times analysis will follow either on our blog or in the next
issue of New Energy Times.

 

 



This message was sent from New Energy Times to hohlr...@gmail.com. It was
sent from: New Energy Times, 369-B 3rd St. #556 , San Rafael, CA 94901. You
can modify/update your subscription via the link below.

 <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Email Marketing by
 <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> iContact - Try It Free!

 


 
<http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=7604971&l=9436&s=J3DB&m=214
502&c=229442> To be removed click here
<http://app.icontact.com/icp/sub/forward?m=214502&s=7604971&c=J3DB&cid=22944
2> 



 

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Esa Ruoho]

Who's Hot in Cold Fusion?

The countries with the most advanced LENR programs are Japan, Italy, and
Israel. In addition, Russia, France, China, South Korea, and India are
spending significant resources on LENR research. The following are among the
most notable efforts:

- In Japan, Iwamura at Mitsubishi has been studying transmutation of
elements in LENR experiments and multilayer palladium (Pd) complexes. His
team includes the Japanese Synchrotron Radiation Research Institute and
SPring-8 at Riken. Kitamura and other researchers at Kobe University are
investigating Pd nanopowders and Helium-4 ash. Arata at Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries has worked on catalysts containing nanopalladium. Yamaguchi at
Kobe noted transmutation using multilayered Pd samples. Mizuno at Hokkaido
is studying transmutations and heat generation. A team led by Hioki at
Toyota is investigating deuterium gas permeation through Pd as well as
transmutations. Toriyabe at Tohoku University is developing charged-particle
detectors for LENR. Kasagi is looking at electron and ionic screening in
LENR effects.

- Vittorio Violante, a leader in the field of Pd metallurgy and the role of
surface effects in LENR, heads a team at ENEA, Frascati Rome, (the Italian
equivalent to the U.S. Department of Energy) performing LENR experiments. A
team led by Francesco Celani at INFN that includes STMicroelectronics and
Pirelli labs is studying deuterium migration in nanocoated Pd for
fast-loading and anomalous heat effects. The Italian Physical and Chemical
Societies are supporting LENR research in Italy.

- Srinivasan in India noted that India is restarting its LENR program; the
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre has several groups working on LENR from 1989
to the early 1990s. Sinha at IISc in Bangalore is studying models for fusion
in metal deuterides. Lakshmanan at Saveetha College is exploring fusion in
sodium metal solutions.

- Andrei Lipson and other researchers at the Russian Academy of Sciences and
scientists in Tomsk are studying the emission of charged particles during
the use of electron beams to excite palladium/deuterium (Pd/D) and
titanium/deuterium (Ti/D) targets. Karabut and others at LUCH also are
conducting LENR experiments. A Dubna team led by Gareev is studying nuclear
fusion during cavitation and molecular transitions. LUCH's Savvatimova,
Dash, Muromtsev, and Artamonov also are conducting LENR experiments.
Adamenko and Vysotskii of Kiev are looking for magnetic monopoles in LENR
experiments. Kurchatov-based scientists Goryachev is investigating LENR for
alternative energy sources and for mitigating radioactive waste.

- Xing Z. Li at Tshinghua University claims 20 institutions in China are
investigating LENR with governmental support. Tian's team at Cahnchun
University of Science and Technology is investigating laser triggering in
Pd/D systems. Zhang and other researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences
have studied Pd-D kinetics in LENR since 1991.

- Israeli scientists at Energetics in Omer have shown that variations in
energy output can be increased using variable frequency or pulsed
"superwaves" to stimulate LENR effects.

- The French Atomic Energy Agency had an official LENR program from 1997 to
1999. EDF also had one for several years. Currently, Jean-Paul Biberian from
the Universite Marseille and Jacques Dufour at CNAM are working on LENR in
France.

- Jan Marwan of Dr. Marwan Chemie in Berlin, Germany, is studying the
nanostructure of palladium hydride systems. Huke and others from the
Technische Universitat Berlin are working with Czerski in Poland and
Ruprecht in Canada on electron screening mechanisms for deuteron fusion.

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner wrote:


That is an astounding document. Even I think it is a little over-the-top.



I don't.  I think there is huge potential for practical 
devices.  Even more critical is the fact a lot more effort is being 
made in other countries.


Naturally, I agree with the sentiments expressed in the document. A 
lot of it I might have written myself. But it is so boldly positive I 
might have made it a little more hesitant in tone, with a few more 
words such as "assuming" or "likely" thrown in.



This document is in image only Acrobat format. I am making an image 
over text formatted version. I will correct all OCR errors. There are 
surprisingly few.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Horace Heffner]

On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Esa Ruoho wrote:


yeah. this is pretty blatant.


13 November 2009
Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear  
Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance


The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assesses with high confidence  
that if LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions) can produce nuclear- 
origin energy at room temperatures, this disruptive technology  
could revolutionize energy production and storage, since nuclear  
reactions release millions of times more energy per unit mass than  
do any known chemical fuel.




Note the word "if"in the sentence above.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Horace Heffner]

On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


This refers to:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/2009DIA-08-0911-003.pdf

That is an astounding document. Even I think it is a little over- 
the-top.


- Jed




I don't.  I think there is huge potential for practical devices.   
Even more critical is the fact a lot more effort is being made in  
other countries.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Horace Heffner]

This appeared to me to be really stunning!  An official recognition  
of the possibility of the reality of CF!  However, I see the authors  
include Mosier-Boss, McKubre, and Forsley.  If the paper disappears  
we won't know if it is due to security concerns or action by  
pathological debunkers.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/


On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:


It makes one wonder what might be contained in a classified report!

Thanks!

Terry

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, New Energy Times re...@newenergytimes.com> wrote:




Monday, 16 November, 2009

Defense Analysis Report #DIA-08-0911-003

- Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear  
Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance -


A New Energy Times analysis will follow either on our blog or in  
the next issue of New Energy Times.






This message was sent from New Energy Times to hohlr...@gmail.com.  
It was sent from: New Energy Times, 369-B 3rd St. #556 , San  
Rafael, CA 94901. You can modify/update your subscription via the  
link below.	

Email Marketing by


  To be removed click here  

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Esa Ruoho]

yeah. this is pretty blatant.


13 November 2009
Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions
Increasing and Gaining Acceptance

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assesses with high confidence that if
LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions) can produce nuclear-origin energy at
room temperatures, this disruptive technology could revolutionize energy
production and storage, since nuclear reactions release millions of times
more energy per unit mass than do any known chemical fuel.


On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> It makes one wonder what might be contained in a classified report!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Terry
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, New Energy Times <
> no-re...@newenergytimes.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> **
>> *Monday, 16 November, 2009*
>>
>>
>> Defense Analysis Report 
>> #DIA-08-0911-003
>>
>> - Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions
>> Increasing and Gaining Acceptance -
>>
>> A New Energy Times analysis will follow either on our blog or in the next
>> issue of New Energy Times.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   This message was sent from New Energy Times to hohlr...@gmail.com. It
>> was sent from: New Energy Times, 369-B 3rd St. #556 , San Rafael, CA 94901.
>> You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.
>>
>> Email Marketing by 
>> [image: iContact - Try It Free!] 
>>
>>To be removed click here
>> 
>> 
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Jed Rothwell]

This refers to:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/2009DIA-08-0911-003.pdf

That is an astounding document. Even I think it is a little over-the-top.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

[Terry Blanton]

It makes one wonder what might be contained in a classified report!

Thanks!

Terry

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, New Energy Times <
no-re...@newenergytimes.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> **
> *Monday, 16 November, 2009*
>
>
> Defense Analysis Report 
> #DIA-08-0911-003
>
> - Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions
> Increasing and Gaining Acceptance -
>
> A New Energy Times analysis will follow either on our blog or in the next
> issue of New Energy Times.
>
>
>
>
>   This message was sent from New Energy Times to hohlr...@gmail.com. It
> was sent from: New Energy Times, 369-B 3rd St. #556 , San Rafael, CA 94901.
> You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.
>
> Email Marketing by 
> [image: iContact - Try It Free!] 
>
>To be removed click here
> 
> 
>