Robert E Godes: why Cold Fusion is so opposed by physicists

1st Official Post
    • Official Post

    On Bill Gates site, Robert E Godes propose an explanation why Cold Fusion is so opposed since 1989.


    http://disq.us/p/1a72vi8

    Quote from Robert E. Godes


    They are not the reason. In the case of LENR the real reason is that in 1989 the University of Utah broke many of the basic tenets of scientific research in an attempt to usurp some of the approximately 500 million dollars that was about to be released to the hot Fusion community that week. They got none of the money but they did disrupted approximately five hundred million dollars in US federal government funds that were about to be released to the hot Fusion community. Which explains why the scientists from the hot Fusion community engaged in personal attacks on Pons and Fleishman. They did their best to completely discredit the phenomena and anybody or anything associated with it, in an attempt to free up the funding for their own projects. They were so brutal in their attacks and the disruption was so great, that to this day the academic community refuses to even look at papers associated with this phenomenon. Julian Schwinger, a Nobel Laureate, resigned from the American Physical Society over their refusal to even look at one of his papers dealing with the subject. You should search for an article called the reputation trap for more information about why LENR is in the position it is within the academic community. Brillouin Energy Corp. is in the process of solving the engineering physics required to bring the phenomena to a functional technology status. SRI will be presenting some of our current work. The report at iccf 20 in Japan will also provide an up to the day status update.


    EDIT: similar article by Ed Storms
    Self-Interest and LENR (Edmund Storms)


    Quote from Edmund Storms


    I watched how the attitude toward LENR changed at LANL. I watched as tolerance changed to hostility. The change was not based on lack of reproducibility. I and many other people were able to cause the effect. Besides, many phenomenon are initially difficult to control and are not rejected for this reason. The rejectors only used this claim as a fig leaf to hide another reason. I believe the rejection had a more sinter reason. The real reason was simply protection of self interest, initially by people funded by the hot fusion program.


    In 1989, hot fusion was in trouble because Congress was getting increasingly impatient with the slow progress. I believe certain very powerful people realized that LENR would siphon funds away from hot fusion and eventually kill it. They could not make this fear public so they set about convincing the public that LENR was bad science, which was easy to do. This was power politics at its worst. This worked because Fleischmann and the rest of us were playing the honest game of understanding nature for everyone’s benefit. In contrast, a few powerful people were only protecting themselves using any dishonest tool they could find. We and they were not playing by the same rules and we still aren’t.


    We see this process unfolding every day in Congress and being applied to a range of issues. Facts and what is real do not count in government these days. Self-interest rules. We in LENR have not created a self-interest for anyone of importance outside of a few groups having special needs, such as NASA. Even these groups have to hide their work to avoid being tarred by the bad science claim. In short, no one of importance needs LENR. Once the need is demonstrated, the attitude will change instantly. Perhaps Rossi will show that need or perhaps another country will create the need for the US to take an interest. We have to wait and see where the need is revealed before we can expect acceptance.

    Quote from AlainCo

    They did their best to completely discredit the phenomena and anybody or anything associated with it, in an attempt to free up the funding for their own projects. They were so brutal in their attacks and the disruption was so great, that to this day the academic community refuses to even look at papers associated with this phenomenon.


    Those -expletive- should be dragged in the street and hanged to a lamppost, I'm barely kidding.


    People like this are enemies of science, art, and they performed a big old crime against humanity by forcing the world to keep on relying on either fossil fuel or Fukushimas much longer than we had to.
    All the dead because of conflicts related to oil, pollution, nuclear mishaps? A part of their blood is on the hands of those entitled devils.


    There's nothing more disgusting than deliberately slowing down humanity's progress AND supporting systems which provoke tragedies and carnage. That should be legally covered, and harshly punished.


    This post is deliberately inflammatory as the situation is still there: you can read, daily, this same kind of people wanting to suppress clean technologies, and they should be told exactly what is it they do, and what is it they are.

    On the other hand, an idea is not going to happen before its time and the tech case for LENR is barely in place now. Boiling water is just one percent of the LENR tech content. Mankind will find it very hard to swallow the entire LENR tech pill.

    The dismissal of technology is directly proportional the number of people, who feel threatened with it. The cold fusion competes all existing methods of energy production, conversion transport and storage (from tokamak over solar plants to batteries) at the same moment, so it's dismissed by most scientific people in most obstinate way, because at least half of researchers are engaged in energy research in this way or another one. It's not about fossil fuel lobby at all, actually the whole green sector of "renewable technologies" has a good reason to silence the cold fusion as well - despite just the cold fusion could help to fight with global warming in most effective way.


    It also point to deeply hypocritical attitude of proponents of renewables, who just follow their own profit in fight with global warming. Actually I believe the green lobby are more concerned than nuclear/oil, because they are fiercely more political and aggressive since they make their living solely on the taxpayer expense.


    http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…connection/#comment-24050

    Quote

    On Bill Gates site, Robert E Godes propose an explanation why Cold Fusion is so opposed since 1989.



    Alain, when you are not incoherent (to my reading, anyway), you are misleading and deceptive. Godes did not get Bill Gate's ear and did not, as you suggest, write an article on "Bill Gates' site." What he did was to append a comment to remarks by Gates which do not mention in any way cold fusion or LENR.


    Quote

    The dismissal of technology is directly proportional the number of people, who feel threatened with it.


    Usual, crappola nonsense. Nobody can dismiss important technology which has been PROPERLY shown to work. LENR is no exception. The reason it is dismissed is because the evidence for it at low levels is unconvincing to most scientists and the evidence at high power levels is either sparse and unreplicated or entirely missing or like Rossi, deceptive from the start.

    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Nobody can dismiss important technology which has been PROPERLY shown to work.


    Read the GOP platform. They dismiss wind energy and global warming, and they recommend the use of coal for the next 100 years. Ignoring an important technology and embracing a destructive one is functionally the same as dismissing important technology.


    History is full of other examples.


    During WWI, many leading generals dismissed the use of tanks and other war-winning technology. Thanks to such attitudes, the allies nearly lost the war, and they suffered millions of unnessary casualties. Even when millions of lives and the fate of civilization is at stake, people still ignore or dismiss important technology.


    A less dramatic example is the neglect of electric automobiles until Tesla came along and grabbed a larger share of the luxury market than all other luxury automobiles combined.


    As I pointed out before, most mainframe computer makers and all minicomputer makers dismissed the microprocessor and the personal computer in the 1980s, which is why they all went out of business. Ken Olson, the CEO of DEC famously said, "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."


    No one suggested that microcomputers do not exist, but ignoring them is as stupid as thinking they do not exist. It ends up the same way. Mainstream physicists who think that cold fusion does not exist are as stupid as WWI generals, Ken Olson, or you.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    During WWI, many leading generals dismissed the use of tanks and other war-winning technology. Thanks to such attitudes, the allies nearly lost the war, and they suffered millions of unnessary casualties. Even when millions of lives and the fate of civilization is at stake, people still ignore or dismiss important technology.


    You forgot about to mention pearl harbor and the radar showing white flies... - to many planes...

    • Official Post
    Quote from Mary Yugo

    Alain, when you are not incoherent (to my reading, anyway), you are misleading and deceptive. Godes did not get Bill Gate's ear and did not, as you suggest, write an article on "Bill Gates' site." What he did was to append a comment to remarks by Gates which do not mention in any way cold fusion or LENR.


    just a point,
    don't beat a strawman.


    what did I write ?


    did I say an article ?


    he wrote (ok, a comment) on bill gates site, and what is important is what he says.


    note that when I read your prose, I consider what you wrote, not who you are. Sometime after many messages who show a clear bias toward a thesis, I put a filter to correct that bias, considering only what oppose that bias (which hold most information content). Be sure that when you will support LENR , like when Jed and Dewey bashed Rossi, I will consider deeply your arguments.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Quote from Mary Yugo: “Nobody can dismiss important technology which has been PROPERLY shown to work.”
    Read the GOP platform. They dismiss wind energy and global warming, and they recommend the use of coal for the next 100 years. Ignoring an…


    This is my first post to the forum. Having followed the "Rossi Saga" since 2011, the various forums I am always amazed at the staunch division in these talks. I personally believe that this debate has evolved into a religion. You have the staunch supporters, that cannot see the forests for the trees. You have the staunch deniers, that cannot consider anything that might suggest a positive outcome.


    I see the same mind set in Democrat versus Republican. Protestant versus Catholic. Muslims versus Buddhists and on and on and on. It must be the state of the human mind. Some "tribal mindset" artifact that one associates with and must defend at all costs. (I do not cast this wide umbrella over everyone, but it is interesting how far it reaches!)


    Anyway, I encourage everyone to remain civil, unlike some who start every post with a demeaning word play on the poster's name, that really shows maturity! And to remain civil if someone does not come to the same conclusion.


    For instance on Jed's remark (I hope I worked the quote function properly), it is true that individuals or smaller groups do indeed oppress advancement, such as tanks and PC'S. However I also have to note that ALL the examples he gave WERE in wide spread use in a few short years. LENR has been decades in coming. So in this case, I see both posters / arguments as being valid. Jed is correct that some can oppress, but Mary is also correct in that a good thing cannot be suppressed, at least for long. (In a open society at least.)


    I want LENR to be commercially successful. Early on I was strongly convinced it was around the corner. If I look at the hard facts, I am not so sure anymore.


    I look forward to constructive discussions in the future. :)

    Jed:

    Quote

    Read the GOP platform. They dismiss wind energy and global warming, and they recommend the use of coal for the next 100 years. Ignoring an important technology and embracing a destructive one is functionally the same as dismissing important technology.


    Once again, you deliberately misinterpret what I said. OK. I'll refine it to: Nobody can *effectively* dismiss important technology. The GOP can rant and rave all they want about solar and wind and electric cars but the markets for these grows steadily and there is no question that all three work and work well. The point is, it DOESN'T MATTER what people (skeptics, pseudoskeptics, etc. etc.) say about high power cold fusion if it works.


    BTW, I didn't ignore the reprint links you provided but it will take me a while to examine the papers and comment.


    The huge elephant in the room when it comes to Toyota is that if indeed they had a COP as large as 250 and a power level in dozens of Watts in 1996, what the f*k happened since? It's been TWENTY YEARS and no replication, right? How does THAT happen with such a spectacular result?

    Quote

    As I pointed out before, most mainframe computer makers and all minicomputer makers dismissed the microprocessor and the personal computer in the 1980s, which is why they all went out of business. Ken Olson, the CEO of DEC famously said, "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."


    To be fair, this happened because early microcomputers were extremely crude and primitive and very hard for a non-specialist to use with few exceptions. They were also very slow and had very limited storage space and CPU cycles. It was much easier, if much more expensive, to make minicomputers user friendly and capable with high level languages and various UI's. As I am sure you know. And of course, the world became awash in PC's after the Gates/IBM/Apple work of the 1980's. They were shown to work. PROPERLY shown to work and then they were adopted. Where is the adoption of LENR? ANY LENR, much less high power LENR?

    Are you trying to turn a group of physical phenomena into a matter of faith?
    Facts are unfortunately stubborn, and the debate is a false one, as you don't debate about how something that is, maybe isn't. There is stuff happening, people who study it, and some other people who for various reasons, nefarious or emotional, say that this stuff, that happens, does not happen, and sometimes actively hide that it does happen, by cloak or dagger, litterally (Eugene Mallove anyone?).
    The more people say this stuff does not happen, the slower the implementation in everyday tech.


    Surely if you've been following the Rossi saga since 2011 and have been exposed to various baloney like Keshe or ridiculed/suppressed tech like Papp's or Meyer's you understand by now what this is all about, which makes your reflexions all the more weird?

    I am not sure what Keieueue's post above means. Keshe is an obvious scammer. So was Papp - a chronic liar and a schizophrenic. I actually knew someone who met and medically treated Papp (that doctor is dead now but we talked about it before he passed). I don't remember Myers. Papp wasn't suppressed. He was a rank crook. I don't what happened at the demo with Feynman which exploded but I am certain Feynman had nothing to do with the explosion. The best guess is that explosives were hidden in the device and Papp wanted a small explosion to impress investors and he simply screwed up the amount of the charge. Because Cal Tech agreed to settle for idiotic reasons, nobody will ever know. To me, Rossi is not different from Papp or Keshe except that he is better and more lucky, mostly the latter, in identifying and using his marks.

    • Official Post

    Bob,


    Nice post. The battle lines have gotten pretty interesting lately after the IH/Rossi falling out. Before that, the LENR community generally either supported Rossi, or said little about him. When IH came along they were viewed by all as a needed breath of fresh air. Overall, we presented a united front.

    Now, with the break-up, we have had to choose sides, turning former allies into enemies. It gets further complicated when some let their social/political biases (little guy vs big guy) (Dems vs Reps) filter into their arguments.

    Long story short; it is a mess now, with a massive divide. The insiders, to their credit, are trying to get the healing process going by putting Rossi behind, and rallying us around the future of LENR (IH). But many are not having that, as they are not willing to let go of Rossi just yet. That does not sit well with the insiders, who get flustered by their intent (and "facts") being questioned, which makes it even worse.


    Although I think Rossi has nothing, and he is sleazy, I can see why some stay loyal to him though. There are just too many unanswered questions remaining, and a lot of things that do not fit into the IH narrative. Until IH addresses those incongruities, there is still a hope that Rossi has something. And as long as they have that hope, and the rest want to get on with the post Rossi era, well...


    I guess we just have to accept that we won't come together in unity again until this is resolved.

    Actually many early micro-computers were easier to use, more reliable and cheaper than their more expensice competitors - minicomputers :)


    However attempting to write an operating system without knowledge of the CPU is the real analogy with CF. We don't know what the underlying cause of apparent anomalies are. So long as engineers think they can randomly change parameters or increase the scale without any real understanding of what is happening then of course progress is going to be extremely slow.


    What the field needs is scientific investigation not engineering development. And that investigation should be innovative. There is little point replicating historic experiments merely to make more accurate measurements. After all if previous accurate measurements didn't convince anyone why should repetition have any effect. Repeating oneself and expecting a different result, they say, is a sign of insanity! :)


    I should add a proviso. Repetition with modern instrumentation might pay dividends. For example claims of isotopic anomalies should be backed up by multiple methods, (e.g. MS, NAA, XRF etc.). It is far too possible for any one method to be flawed by some systematic error.


    What kind of innovative scientific investigation needs to be done? Obviously we need to test theories. Now I dare say the non-scientists here will protest, as one has already protested, that theories are too "vague" to make any testable predictions! This is a half truth. I will concede that many (but not all) theorists have been reluctant to be proved wrong, and therefore have deliberately or unconsciously failed to how their theory can be trested. Perhaps civil discussion might assist them to be more explicit. But in any case a theory should be tested independently. That means understanding in detail what is proposed and how to distinguish the fundamental conjectures.


    Obviously it would be inefficient to serially test 1 theory then another. By putting theories into categories it should be possible to test 1 aspect common of all that category. For example any theory that predicts close approach of hydrogen isotopes is going to predict some hot fusion products (even if hopeful theorists say otherwise). Perhaps we can eliminate some theories without any further testing! This suggests that the field needs some kind of scientific committee to coordinate research.

    The establishment physicists opposed the LENR wildly from the very beginning - which means from 1922 year


    https://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1222.pdf



    Exploding wire experiments involving LENRs were actually conducted at the University of Chicago some 94 years ago. In 1922, Wendt & Irion, two chemists at the U of C, reported the results of relatively simple experiments that consisted of exploding tungsten wires with a very
    large current pulse under a vacuum inside of flexible sealed glass “bulbs.” and claimed to have observed the presence of anomalous helium inside the sealed bulbs after the tungsten wires were blown, suggesting that transmutation of hydrogen into helium had somehow occurred during
    the disintegration of tungsten. After announcing their results at a regional American Chemical Society meeting held at Northwestern University in Evanston, widespread global media coverage in the form of breathless newspaper headlines about “transmutations of elements” triggered
    a response from the existing scientific establishment in the form of a very negative critique of Wendt & Irion’s work by Sir Ernest Rutherford that was promptly published in Nature.


    Sadly, Rutherford resoundingly won the contemporary debate; he was believed. Wendt & Irion, mere chemists and comparative nobodies from the University of Chicago, were not. They were crushed by the withering blast from Rutherford. After 1923, Wendt and Irion abandoned their
    exploding wire experiments and turned to other lines of research. Sadly, Gerald Wendt died just a few years later; Irion then left the University of Chicago to teach chemistry at a small Midwestern college. No other researchers at Chicago continued their line of inquiry.


    After seeing what Rutherford had done to them, who on earth would have had the courage to follow in Wendt & Irion’s footsteps?

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.