A new foundation that can boost the development of LENR energy.

1st Official Post

    With a few exceptions, the funds are closed to LENR researchers. Starting a company may be the only option left for a scientist, if he wants to achieve any substantial results in the vastly unexplored field of LENR science. It is an unfortunate situation. The financial risks are high.


    Today, we have a situation where much of the real action is going on in secrecy, resources are misused and lost, disputes and mistrust emerge. Ultimately, the market can solve it all, but the climate and environmental change calls for urgency. The E-Cat has not delivered and the market for LENR energy seems distant. International cooperation, open supplementary and validated scientific projects should be the rule – not the exception. Salute MFMP! For the time being, grants – not investments or subsidies – should fuel the major part of the work.


    Together with a few persons in the LENR community, I have discussed the idea of creating an international LENR energy charity foundation that could fund R&D projects, being a professional (=paid project workers) alternative to the idealistic and commendable efforts made under the MFMP umbrella. Properly organized, managed and marketed, it can attract big potential funders, could be philanthropists, energy industry and international organisations.


    An independent expert-based international LENR energy charity foundation can help by:

    • attracting new groups of funders, increasing the funds available for LENR researchers.
    • facilitating funding of LENR projects.
    • using resources more efficiently by target-directed multi-year research programs.
    • promoting international cooperation between academic institutions, enterprises and other organisations.
    • accelerating the development of materials and processes.
    • supplying special equipment and materials to laboratories.
    • publishing data and reports, marketing LENR science.


    To maximize the efficiency of the received funds, the research programs governing the work of the LENR foundation should be narrow and target-directed. The administration should be kept to a minimum. Board meetings by internet will keep the costs down. Just like with MFMP, open science should be the rule. The board members and particularly the foundation's ED will be crucial for success. The founders must be careful when appointing the trustees and be aware of their dependencies. The international character of the foundation should be reflected by the composition of the board. The governing document will be important. It must be effective but not too detailed.


    When selecting the country where the foundation shall be registered, besides the national rules for a charity foundation, including requirements of citizenship for founders and trustees, the following issues are among those that should be taken in special consideration:

    • The foundation's independence.
    • The signing procedures (founders and trustees).
    • Required initial funds.
    • Minimum funding needed to administer the foundation.


    That is the idea. To be discussed, developed or dismissed. Whatever it deserves.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_(nonprofit) - brief data for a few countries


    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ho…aritys-governing-document – UK charities


    https://www.gov.uk/government/…tionModelConstitution.pdf - template



    A rough example of a governing document



    Constitution for …...............…..... Foundation


    Name of Foundation: …....................... Foundation


    Its name of Firm: ….................... Institute


    The Foundation shall have its seat in …....City......................., ….Country....


    Governing law: ….......................


    PURPOSE


    The Foundation is an autonomous institution. Its objective is to help accelerate the shift from fossil energy to environmentally friendly LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) energy.


    This shall be achieved by:

    • funding international research and development projects about LENR and LENR technology that can replace fossil fuels in energy producing devices.
    • electronically publishing data, information and reports from the funded projects.
    • supplying LENR-related data, information, services, materials and equipment to laboratories.
    • requiring that all data and information needed for replication and validation of experiments in a funded project must be presented in the project report and that no patent applications …............................................ are being filed …......................


    BOARD OF TRUSTEES

    • The Foundation shall be governed and represented by a Board of Trustees.
    • The Founders shall, by majority vote, appoint the Trustees of the Foundation's Board, including its Executive Director.
    • The Board shall be elected for three years. A Trustee can be appointed for maximum three terms.
    • The Board shall have no less than six and no more than twelve Trustees, representing at least two continents and four countries.
    • The Executive Director shall represent the Foundation towards potential funders and shall primarily be appointed on his/her marketing qualifications.
    • The Board shall elect its Chairman, Research Director and Director of Institute from among its members. The Chairman shall lead and organize the Board activities.
    • The Research Director shall be responsible for the administration of the Foundation's research programs, funded projects and related assets, and the publishing of project reports.
    • The Director of Institute shall be responsible for any commercial activities.
    • At least one of the Trustees authorized to sign for the Foundation shall be a …...... citizen.
    • The Board shall in equal numbers be composed of Trustees representing energy industry or related organisations, academic science, plus a third group adding other valuable qualifications. The scientists shall represent relevant fields of both chemistry and physics. The board members shall have adequate knowledge about the status of LENR science and technology.
    • Board decisions shall be taken in meetings by electronic means. Decisions of the Board shall generally be taken by consensus. When voting is resorted to, decisions shall be taken by simple majority. In case of a tie, the Chairman may cast the decisive vote.
    • The Trustees shall receive remunerations based on the decisions of the Board. No more than …. percent of the received donations shall be used for remunerations to the Trustees, including travelling expenses, excluding the remunerations to the Research Director.
    • No costs related to the Foundation's business activities may be covered by donations.


    METHODS

    • To receive donations, before its registration and subsequent, the Foundation shall publish call for funds, promoted by the Executive Director and other Trustees.
    • The Board shall formulate one or more research programs specifying the goals to be achieved, the project requirements and the administrative and financial routines. A research program can span over three and up to six years. It can be extended in time if needed.
    • The Board shall formulate the guide lines to be used when selecting and approving project applications.
    • The Board shall publish calls for project applications on its web site.
    • During a three-year period, at least 75% of the received donations must be used for item 1 and 2 under PURPOSE above.
    • The Foundation shall fund project equipment either with 100% or 50% or less. If funded with 100%, the equipment shall be owned by the Foundation.
    • Besides its research programs, the Foundation can run a business, under its name of firm, to supply LENR material and related equipment and services.


    Founder (name and country code):…....


    Date …..


    Founder's signature …..................................................

    • Official Post

    A very creditable document, and a fine idea. However, it is (just) my opinion that your plan could fall between several stools. Here's why.


    Those few Academics free to undertake LENR research openly generally scrape up enough money to do what they want. Think about SRI or the Sidney Kimmel operation for example


    Smaller private companies pursuing ideas - who can show at least something - even if it might be flawed - seem to be able to find venture capital sufficient to operate for (sometimes) decades. Think BLP, Brillouin, or (non-LENR) Steorn. LENR-Invest and Anthropocene Institute seem to have covered this base well.


    Independent researchers have such widely differing needs - and demand such widely differing outcomes in return for their work that it is difficult to create a 'one-size fits all' policy. Sometimes even they don't know what they want. Anything from 'open science' to 'top secret' is their attitude to their work. Maybe it is just to have fun on occasions but the lure of the venture dollar gets them, too. Think how varied the public exposure arcs of MFMP, Me356, and Aleksander Parkhomov have been for example.


    There is another problem. Outside of venture capital and Academic researchers I doubt there are much more than 100 people involved globally in what they consider to be private research in need of the intrusions/oversight that funding always requires. And I include the ones who publish and comment on the web - those we know about. I have been looking 'on and off' for someone to work with me in my own modestly funded UK Lab (N.London) for two years. Many advertisements have failed to turn up a single serious applicant, let alone a real helper.


    So good plan, but a thin market, as a player in the market-place I know.

    Alan, as I understand it, the work by the 'few Academics free to undertake LENR research openly' usually have suffered from lack of funding. These guys have done what they can with small resources.


    Considering small private LENR companies, a minority have received fruitful amounts of venture capital. It is difficult today and may become even more difficult tomorrow. I know by my and others experience. If the E-Cat had been validated, the situation would be different. Investors usually enter at a late stage in the development chain. We should not except them to fund research.


    You are right about that 'Independent researchers have such widely differing needs - and demand such widely differing outcomes in return for their work that it is difficult to create a 'one-size fits all' policy'. An efficient foundation would not be created in order to suit all the needs, but to achieve a specific goal. A subset of qualified scientists and engineers around the Globe can achieve big things when working together or in supplementary projects, heading towards the same goal. We have seen it happen several times, not least in physics.


    If you have a thick money bag to offer, you will see a different situation - it will be much easier to find a partner. A foundation with increasing funds and stimulating research programs will make the 'market' grow.


    The problem:


    Mankind needs inexpensive environmentally friendly (base load) energy.
    LENR has the potential to supply it.
    R&D is hampered by lack of money, IP rights and secrecy.
    The usual means of funding are absent.


    Please solve it.

    • Official Post

    Well, as part owner of a tiny company I can only do so much. My vision and hope in founding Lookingforheat.com with Sam is that we reduce the cost and material sourcing problems of experimenters, and design and sell cheap and simple but effective systems for testing and experimenting. I was pleased and very flattered when a well-known physicist (who must remain anonymous) who had ordered a 'Model T' got back to me to say 'I love your machine, and now my colleagues want to play with it.'


    So that's what I can do.


    I think you should search for (perhaps) a retired but experienced charity fundraiser - they may have ideas that will help you get this off the ground.


    ps. As for funding Academics, I know from many years of raising money for a London University that Universities 'eat like elephants, and shit like mice'. In general it is the admin superstructure, not the research infrastructure, that gets the cash.

    • Official Post

    Note that your idea is similar to what SFSNMC in France want to organize there.
    Mathieu Valat is the one to contact to exchange.


    It seems a good idea, and is desirable, but I'm pessimistic.
    It is a shame that the biggest opportunity to make money go to charity funding.
    People giving money to a profitable idea like LENR would prefer crowd-equity model, or ecosystem like LENR-Cities.
    Their model can be replicated, nested,even if they are the most competent in the details...

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Those few Academics free to undertake LENR research openly generally scrape up enough money to do what they want. Think about SRI or the Sidney Kimmel operation for example


    No, they are not able to scrape up enough. The ones I know work on a shoestring. Most academics who wish to study cold fusion cannot get funded at all. Even if they could get funded, it would be career suicide. They would soon be fired. Even a tenured professor would probably be fired for a trumped-up charge unrelated to the research, the way Rusi Taleyarkhan was when he tried to do sono-fusion research. (This is not cold fusion, but the modern physics establishment has a low tolerance for new or unproven ideas.)

    • Official Post

    My dear Jed. How combative you are! I was not talking about the reputation trap and people getting fired. I was talking about 'Those few Academics free to undertake LENR research openly (who) generally scrape up enough money to do what they want'. The ones I know would also claim to be working on a shoestring, frequently do. But it is a shoestring that generally supports a comfortable life, I'm happy to say.


    I mentioned that spent part of my own university lecturing career raising money for my employers by working as a consultant - and also by squeezing funding for equipment and research out of what was then called the 'Department of Trade and Industry' . I did pretty well at it too so they told me. But that is how I know that in the UK at least, a large percentage of any money raised is 'leeched off' by the AdmInistration, and researchers are in fact lucky to see 10% of the money raised actually buy them time and space to work on the alleged purposes.


    But why are you quibbling with me? This is a thread for discussing Birger's detailed account of his ideas. What do you think of them?

    Rothwell wrote:


    Quote

    ... Most academics who wish to study cold fusion cannot get funded at all. Even if they could get funded, it would be career suicide. They would soon be fired. Even a tenured professor would probably be fired for a trumped-up charge unrelated to the research, the way Rusi Taleyarkhan was when he tried to do sono-fusion research.


    And yet, Duncan, Hagelstein, Kim, Dash, Nagel, Miley, Oriani, and the academics involved with SKINR have not been fired. And that's just in the US. There are academics in Italy, Japan, India, and other countries working on cold fusion who have not been fired.


    Taleyarkhan was censured for research misconduct, but not fired -- he still holds his position at Purdue. Whether the charge was trumped up or not, I wouldn't know, but academics are not all pure as the driven snow, so he may be guilty, and as you say, it wasn't even cold fusion, and the charge was most certainly related to the research. People working on pyroelectric fusion, which is somewhat similar, have not been fired or censured. Indeed, one of the leaders, Gimzewski, was recently elected Fellow of the Royal Society, and earlier won the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology.


    Quote

    (This is not cold fusion, but the modern physics establishment has a low tolerance for new or unproven ideas.)


    Only if by low tolerance you mean high praise. Bednorz and Muller won the Nobel prize for the very new HTSC the year after its discovery. Perlmutter (and two others) won it for discovering the accelerating expansion of the universe, contrary to expectations. In his Nobel address, he said:


    "Perhaps the only thing better for a scientist than finding the crucial piece of a puzzle that completes a picture is finding a piece that doesn't fit at all, and tells us that there is a whole new part of the puzzle that we haven't even imagined yet and the scene in the puzzle is bigger, richer than we ever thought."


    That doesn't sound like low tolerance for new ideas to me.


    Now, you said "new or unproven" ideas, and my examples were *new*. Maybe you mean new *and* unproven. Nobel prizes are not usually given for new *and* unproven ideas. But they are certainly tolerated. One could say that dark matter and dark energy are not proven, as such, but largely accepted. All kinds of new and unproven ideas in physics, like string theory and various quantum gravity theories are tolerated, even if they're not necessarily celebrated.


    What the modern science establishment has little tolerance for are highly implausible *and* unproven claims, particularly after a great deal of protracted effort to prove them. Examples include, but are not limited to, perpetual motion machines, homeopathy, dowsing, astrology, all manner of paranormal claims, and yes, cold fusion.

    Whatever one may think of Randell Mills Suncell, he have a brain wired differently than main stream.
    He propose no convincing strong proof that the Suncell is an over unity device. Actually he express a
    will of staying under the radar and not propose a strong proof, with more some documented replications
    and indications that talk in his favor but is met skeptically by skeptics. My view though is that internally
    they should be very certain today that they have a good COP or not. They really look skilled in what
    they are doing and are well funded to me. He will have a new public demonstration or demonstration
    for cherry picked individuals soon in end of June and probably release a video - popcorn time :-).


    The theory is difficult to follow but I can generally say that his charge fields is indeed non radiating - that
    I verified but I used another proof then he used (one of his two proofs seam to be wrong btw) - and also
    I was able to verify that ionization of one electron ions or atoms indeed can be calculated theoretically and
    agrees with three digits of accuracy of experimental values. Now the body of his work is much more than
    this - but I failed to go any further. In short, in most equations he has, he does a shift in reference frames and
    voila equations is derived (in the low accuracy version that is not needed). I cannot follow this trick, and
    therefore I can't say if it is true or not. But still if you limit yourself to 3 digits accuracy and the ionisation I
    mentioned it can be followed and it is not that hard math demanded but you need to be a grown up math
    wiz to understand that you can skip things that are difficult to follow.


    I like the approach of setting up a hypothesis of a non radiation charge distribution in a shell. First of all, we
    have a problem with QM in that we can't get it to mix with general relativity, something is missing and a
    singularity might be the trick we have not tried. Also if we want to enter a singularity in our models, a surface
    singularity is more probable than a curve or a point. Think about it if, space can give after and crack a surface
    is more probable than even lower dimensions. Also modifying the EM theory is attractive because we have
    one unified theory of both the big scale and the small scale - a problem with QM today I understand. Finally
    spin is fully explained and not anything mysterious.


    In all I think there are good theoretical reasons for a theory of Mills kind. There is good agreement
    of certain ionization (much more is claimed but I can't follow) energies e.g. QM and this theory, tell
    the same story as well as reality on this specific facet. One could argue that maybe with a few phd and
    a good theoretical professor - one could tune all it to well established full blown theory, all sprung from
    Mills idea that match QM and exhibits a GUT solution to the physics of the world.


    I think people sometimes are right and sometimes are wrong. I can see that Mills is
    right in something - but everything he writes is crap if you ask a professional.


    This is a problem people usually have a black and white pair of glasses and don't understand that the world is in
    color. No they are stuck in their, from young age teachings and wired perhaps so wrongly that it is impossible for
    them to see the obvious. This applies for CF as well and it's fight to recognition, this field might benefit from a
    new fresh theory which probably would enable more calculations and understanding on a theoretical level. I try
    to spend some effort asking the CF community to enter proofs. There is a huge barrier, you need to be well educated
    to take it seriously or become a skeptic depending on your focus. I believe that one need to make enough strong proof
    so that a professional can scan a paper and emediatly see that there must be en effect and not a mistake. I believe that
    is possible with what we have today - but it is expensive and time consuming. But i think it will pay back if successful with
    a flooding of funding and interests.


    Oh I'm also wired to miss obvious things I have to fight it constantly when I'm developing. I can't help to point
    to my pet project https://gitlab.com/gule-log/guile-log on which I put most of me free time. It is a beauty, forgive me
    but it have hardened me to become soft when it comes to ones believes.

    Quote from joshua cude

    And yet, Duncan, Hagelstein, Kim, Dash, Nagel, Miley, Oriani, and the academics involved with SKINR have not been fired.


    Dash and Oriani are dead. The others are all retired, except Duncan. Even when they were working, they had hardly any funding at all. In some cases I paid for the instruments, so I know exactly how much they had.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    My dear Jed. How combative you are! I was not talking about the reputation trap and people getting fired. I was talking about 'Those few Academics free to undertake LENR research openly (who) generally scrape up enough money to do what they want'.


    I assure you they do not generally scrap up enough. Not even 1/10th of enough. Since I personally have paid for some of these experiments I know this for a fact.

    Rothwell wrote:


    Quote

    Dash and Oriani are dead. The others are all retired, except Duncan. Even when they were working, they had hardly any funding at all. In some cases I paid for the instruments, so I know exactly how much they had.


    Their current state, retired or deceased, was not the issue I challenged. Nor was funding. The point is none of them were fired.


    Anyway, Hagelstein is still listed as active at MIT, and the academics involved with SKINR are not retired. And not all the academics in Italy and Japan are retired either.


    There are and have been quite a few academics who work or worked on cold fusion who were not fired. Indeed, I don't know of any tenured professors who were fired. Even Pons left on his own for more funding in France.

    Quote from joshua cude

    Their current state, retired or deceased, was not the issue I challenged. Nor was funding. The point is none of them were fired.


    Some other people, on the other hand, were either fired or threatened with being fired. You do not know who they are, because they stopped doing the research and never reported. Because if they had reported, they would be fired.


    I know who they are because I have heard from them.


    Many other people applied for funding and were turned down. That is the normal outcome.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    I assure you they do not generally scrap up enough. Not even 1/10th of enough. Since I personally have paid for some of these experiments I know this for a fact.


    Funding is lacking. I think that all within the larger LENR community can agree with that. I've also personally paid for equipment, made donations, and the like. I think many on these forums have. As much as we all tend to bicker over finer points, what brings us together is our interest in LENR. I happen to be more interested in LENR+ and its implications, and so lean MFMP, Rossi, Mills, Brilluoun, etc. But that doesn't mean that basic research in LENR couldn't use some more funding, of any kind. It no doubt could. And if it were not for the strident opposition from some scientific quarters, it would receive it.

    Quote

    Rothwell: Some other people, on the other hand, were either fired or threatened with being fired. You do not know who they are, because they stopped doing the research and never reported. Because if they had reported, they would be fired.


    I know who they are because I have heard from them.


    I listed many academics involved in cold fusion who were not fired. There are far far more. You have not named one tenured professor who was fired for working on cold fusion.


    There may be some who were threatened, but frankly, I don't believe they were threatened with firing. You said there were some who were fired and didn't report it for fear of being fired. I think you misspoke.


    Quote

    Many other people applied for funding and were turned down. That is the normal outcome.


    It happens in all fields. From the quality of research I've seen in the field, anyone who applied for funding in cold fusion after say 1991, should have been turned down. But as it happens, many were funded, and P&F to the tune of $50M. Utah got $5M, and SRI (McKubre) got quite a bit from EPRI. The Japanese government and ENEA and the Indian government all funded cold fusion. Storms adds it up to some $500M. And to no avail. There has been zero progress in the field.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    joshua cude wrote:
    And yet, Duncan, Hagelstein, Kim, Dash, Nagel, Miley, Oriani, and the academics involved with SKINR have not been fired.


    Dash and Oriani are dead. The others are all retired, except Duncan. Even when they were working, they had hardly any funding at all. In some cases I paid for the instruments, so I know exactly how much they had.


    Hagelstein is not retired and not dead. However, this is his Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_L._Hagelstein


    From that article:

    Quote

    In 1989 he started investigating cold fusion (also called low-energy nuclear reactions) with the hope of making a breakthrough similar to the X-ray laser.[2] In the period between 1989 and 2004, the field became discredited in the eyes of many scientists. Due to his involvement, as of 2004 he has not achieved full professorship and he has lost his own laboratory.[2]

    The text is based on a Boston Globe article, which I can't read, but a summary of the article roughly confirms it. Peter could not ber fired, he had tenure, if I'm correct. But he could be marginalized, deprived of graduate students, etc. He is still an associate professor, 12 years later.


    Now, what I noticed. There was an attempt to delete that Wikipedia article, in 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…etion/Peter_L._Hagelstein
    Deletion was requested by ScienceApologist. The user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScienceApologist The people SA harassed were often banned. He was banned for his activities, but was allowed to do many things that were normally prohibited. Including sending up smokescreens as to his identity. In fact, he changed his name at one point to Joshua P. Schroeder, giving up his anonymity. And then he attempted to cover that up. If one looks at the page logs, SA was given great consideration by administrators, very unusual for someone who was banned by the Arbitration Committee. I could go on and on, but the current account is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc ... there is a list of former user names linked. "Vanished user" refers to a user who is given an account name change for privacy reasons when they declare that they have no intention of editing Wikipedia. It is not to be used to conceal contribution history.


    The process by which SA was unbanned was ... typical of how Wikipedia processes could be influenced by a faction. Joshua continued to be massively disruptive, and he is currently blocked (which will expire in two days).


    THIS PARA REMOVED. OFFENSIVE! Alan Smith


    No problem with getting published. Obviously, it is that only junk is being submitted to journals by junk scientists. I cover an example in my Current Science article, a story of journal rejection of an article by ... Peter Hagelstein.


    Peter is now publishing only in JCMNS. Why? He was published in that Current Science special section, and he has many mainstream journal publications. I think he just got tired of going through that unreliable journal process. His papers are routinely well enough written. There is peer review in JCMNS. Eventually, the journal will be, I predict, widely recognized. But I have never counted it as "mainstream publication," nor should I, at this time.


    There was a relatively recent decline in regular publication frequency in mainstream journals. It is very different from the nadir of roughly 2004. In 2004, JCMNS was not publishing yet. Many authors in the field elected to support the journal by submitting to it.


    One more juicy tidbit, to this ex-Wikipedian. The deletion request was closed "non-administratively." I did that many times. It's allowed when the consensus is clear for keep. The user who closed was blocked indef for sock puppetry, a month later. From contributions, this was obviously a "returning user," probably banned. I see no sign of factional affiliation that would in any way affect that close decision, it was obviously sound, which is why it was not appealed. He was a wikignome. The block was an Arbcom action, routinely mixing the judicial and executive roles by this time. The only sock identified was after the block.

    On the proposal here. We should distinguish between two areas of research: fundamental science and application research. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been tossed into application research, often without results. Application research has often been funded by organizations that keep the research more or less secret, with little being published, if anything. The sense of Fleischmann was that it would take a Manhattan-scale project to create practical applications. The problems are enormous. The reaction is not understood, to start. Specifically, what Storms calls the Nuclear Active Environment is not clearly know. Storms makes good arguments that the reaction is not in the bulk, but on or at least very near the surface -- which is actually good news, but ... Storms posits that cracks are the site. Again, it makes sense, but what size cracks, exactly? Nobody knows. What are the necessary conditions? There is an enormous body of experimental evidence, but it was not designed to nail down details, It was mostly running an attempt to prove cold fusion was real, against skeptics, buying the idea that what was needed was Moar Heat. Instead of investigating and completely nailing down what was already observed.


    Basically, the private organizations were clearly looking for practical applications. But much of the general self-funded research was doing more or less the same thing. What's missing? The kind of research that is often done by graduate students: confirmation, follow-up. You do not get a nobel prize nor can you generate a patent from a confirmation. This needs to be public research, and while much has been self-funded, that is quite limited. The field needs ordinary public research funding, and this is not about "the development of LENR energy." It is about studying an anomaly that has no clear and known explanation.


    When this research is done, it will become much better known where to look for practical applications. Consider this initiative: http://www.iccf19.com/_system/…ster/AP52_Scarborough.pdf


    Two experimental efforts are described. One is a measurement of the heat/helium ratio with increased precision (which is the only direct evidence that cold fusion is not only real but also nuclear in nature. There is plenty of other evidence, but it is all circumstantial and/or unconfirmed.) So that is basic science aimed at poking out the eye of the claim that there is no reproducible experiment. Those experiments have already been reproduced, confirmed, but there are, shall we say, "issues." For the purpose of understanding where to put research dollars, the objections that some have come up with are irrelevant. A funding agency will not care if prior results were publishing in a journal, they will care if they appear to have been sensibly done. This is money that will not be wasted, unlike applications research, where hundreds of millions of dollars have likely been wasted.


    And there is an "exploding wires" project. WTF? I was very skeptical of this. However, if the existing results can be confirmed, this is a "lab rat." A simple experiment, relatively speaking, easily and quickly done, testing materials. Not attempting, again, to create practical applications. But an effort that could produce results useful in such efforts.


    When the science is ready, there will be no shortage of funds for application research, but I would suggest a consortium do it, because this is truly an enormous problem, and could take many billions of dollars to solve. That funding will not be possible until the basic science issues are addressed. Meanwhile, wildcats will try, and I certainly hope they are successful. It's just not where my energy is going. I started Infusion Institute to facilate research, not by collecting large sums of money, but by identifying research to be done, and the idea was to then identify labs that can do it, and then to seek funding for them. The funding would be by direct contract with a funding agency and the lab. Infusion Institute, which is currently just me, though it's incorporated, is only a facilitator.


    I'm not thrilled by the idea of collecting huge sums to be doled out by a single agency. My experience is that large sums attract flies. Power corrupts, has anyone here noticed that?


    This is not an allegation against anyone. It is about general principles.


    However, a research fund could be created, and I have ideas about how to protect it from institutional corruption, but ... that would, at this point, be getting ahead of reality.


    There are many good ideas in the proposal outlined. However, understand the scale of the project. This could rationally be directing hundreds of millions of dollars a year, or more, billions. Many of the ideas given do fit the concepts on which I founded Infusion Institute, and collaboration is welcome. As it stands now, I see the proposal as heavy on details. But I'll continue to consider it.


    I know some of the pitfalls involved in nonprofit organizations that are board-controlled. I would want to pay much more attention to fundamental power structure.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Some other people, on the other hand, were either fired or threatened with being fired. You do not know who they are, because they stopped doing the research and never reported. Because if they had reported, they would be fired.


    Are You in a position to tell us the names "behind" this chain of fire ??


    WE ALL are very interested in the guys playing for the covered agenda!

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.