Clearance Items

    Quote from Shane D.

    You are given more leeway than others to speak your mind, and when you use it to express your political opinions, which are often quite extreme, i

    Extreme? What is that supposed to mean in this context? 400,000 Americans have died. More than WWII. More than any other country. Per capita, 10 to 100 times more. This is a catastrophe. It was totally avoidable. It is the second worst catastrophe in U.S. history, second only the Civil War. If someone had predicted in December 2019 that in the coming year 400,000 people would die for no reason, in ways that could have been easily prevented, you would not have believed it. No one would have believed it! The situation is unthinkable. It is far out of any reasonable, sane, rational expectation for a 21st century nation.


    Do you think there is any excuse for this? Do you not see that it is the worst mistake and the most irresponsible and destructive set of events in U.S. political history?


    I cannot think of enough extreme words to describe it. If you do not see it as extreme, what would be? What if a president were to select 400,000 people at random, line them up, and machine gun them? Would that be extreme enough? For all intents and purposes, that is what the administration did.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Extreme? What is that supposed to mean in this context? 400,000 Americans have died. More than WWII. More than any other country. Per capita, 10 to 100 times more. This is a catastrophe. It was totally avoidable. It is the second worst catastrophe in U.S. history, second only the Civil War. If someone had predicted in December 2018 that in the coming year 400,000 people would die for no reason, in ways that could have been easily prevented, you would not have believed it. No one would have believed it! The situation is unthinkable. It is far out of any reasonable, sane, rational expectation for a 21st century nation.


    Do you think there is any excuse for this? Do you not see that it is the worst mistake and the most irresponsible and destructive set of events in U.S. political history?


    I cannot think of enough extreme words to describe it. If you do not see it as extreme, what would be? What if a president were to select 400,000 people at random, line them up, and machine gun them? Would that be extreme enough? For all intents and purposes, that is what the administration did.


    You do tell the truth sometimes even though nobody can read it. The people who sent Europe to war and in fact virtually all wars are truly diabolical. "They" would gladly genocide the native European tribes, and history showed they did. It was all political if not spiritual. It is black and evil Half of the swiss have pharonic blood, yes we know that they love to deceive, and that the Knights Templars churches turn the chairs around, or that the inverted cross is such a nice deception worn by Melinda, and Hilary. Prescott Bush funded the WWII effort and that too was a sacrifice of all sides in NYC by Cheney and Bush.


    Everyone who can see knows that the viper servant class is installed in DC. That they are sending their homage to Obelisk images "honoring" the deaths of innocents.


    I do agree that the dark forces appear to be doing the victory dance. They get to play Royalty 2.0 and issue mandates of compliance and moral shaming. They also will wave the flag of Science around while never alllow Ivermectin into the solution mix. These are truly deplorable puppets who we wouldn't let around our kids for thirty seconds.


    But what I fear is on the horizon is a civil war and inciting internal conflict -- like they always do.


    I am surprised by how easy it is too fool so many people and for others how quickly the courage leaves them even on internet forums (especially when the trolls start their inflammatory hyperbole), but c'est la vie.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    I have been away for a while. Anyone up for attempting a brief overview of the interesting news since around 2017? I know a lot may have happened (or not happened). Just curious if anything stands out.

    Hello stranger. We seem to be stuck in the same pattern LENR has been in for 30 years now. Spotty reports of success. Those with credibility like Mizuno then get bogged down for years trying to get their results independently verified. The garage tinkerers usually make the biggest splash, but then quietly slip away after being asked too many questions.


    Most promising IMO are still the Japanese working with the powders, Larry Forsley and his team over at NASA, and the new kids on the block Safire/Aureon Energy. Will have to see if Frank Gordon is on to something before adding him to list. And then there are BLP and BEC still in the picture.


    So in answer to your question; nothing much is new since you left. Same old, same old.

    Shane, good to hear from you, and thanks for the overview. I half suspected as much. I guess the conclusive lab rat experiment hasn't broken out of the garage tinker circles yet.


    My curiosity was piqued by this NASA Glenn Research Center article mentioning two April 2020 papers that were published in Phys Rev C (1, 2), forwarded to me by my dad. As I read through the abstracts, in my head I could hear all of the contentious debate and counterarguments to the effect that "that's not LENR," and I realized I had forgotten most of what I had taught myself about physics and can now no longer tell the difference between an MeV and a liter.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    I have been away for a while. Anyone up for attempting a brief overview of the interesting news since around 2017? I know a lot may have happened (or not happened). Just curious if anything stands out.

    Hello, welcome back! I agree with Shane D. , there have been some really interesting developments but independent replication has been elusive, and those who have high claims (BLP / BEC) are very secretive about


    BLP is rumored to be about to publish in a big name journal (Nature is mentioned) but I will not believe it until I see it.


    SAFIRE / Aureon IMHO are in a different league as they are expanding the idea of LENR and bringing it closer to the coherent matter wave plasma (Also known as ball lightning) side of theory.

    NASA IMHO just is coming clean with their new “lattice assisted fusion” concept that is basically Accepting that Pons and Fleischmann were on the right track, but they also have strong ties with the also very interesting work of Leif Holmlid and his ultra-dense hydrogen concept. Holmlid is now engaged in obtaining the patent for his muon catalyzed fusion system, but he already acknowledged that his system also causes transmutations and that he is also seeing “annihilation like” reactions so again its beyond LENR.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Most promising IMO are still the Japanese working with the powders, Larry Forsley and his team over at NASA, and the new kids on the block Safire/Aureon Energy. Will have to see if Frank Gordon is on to something before adding him to list. And then there are BLP and BEC still in the picture.


    So in answer to your question; nothing much is new since you left. Same old, same old.

    Reminds me Rossi did not post a

    picture of the ECat-SKL I asked for.

    But I think he is still in the picture.

    interested observer one thing I've learned about discussions on topics that are surrounded in controversy is that different people will have different ideas about what should be allowed. I don't know if there's a way to reconcile all of them. It's a hard problem. In that context, interpretive charity towards others' sincerity and intentions is often what is needed.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    interested observer one thing I've learned about discussions on topics that are surrounded in controversy is that different people will have different ideas about what should be allowed.

    Good point. I think some issues are inherently political, while others are not. Comments about politics are appropriate where the issue itself is political. They should be less welcome when the issue is not political.


    For example, mainstream journals tend to reject papers about cold fusion because of academic politics. The JCMNS occasionally rejects papers because they are off topic -- not about cold fusion, or because they are poorly written. (In the latter case they may send the paper to me, for rescue.) That's not political. A rejected author may think it is political, but it isn't.


    To take another example, Fauci and most other researchers think that HCQ is not effective against COVID-19. Trump, and many supporters here, think these researchers have rejected the drug for political reasons. The BBC reported that Trump thinks they oppose it because he supports it. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53575964) In other words, Trump and the supporters here think this is a political issue, therefore political comments are appropriate.


    So, is HCQ political or not? I have not looked closely at the studies, so I cannot judge. Reports say it failed the double blind tests. Such tests are usually reliable, so if these reports are accurate I suppose it is not effective in most cases. There was one test that was faked, and was later retracted. That sounds political. But you cannot reject the other tests because that one test was corrupted by politics.


    Fauci said:


    "We know that every single good study - and by good study I mean randomised control study in which the data are firm and believable - has shown that hydroxychloroquine is not effective in the treatment of Covid-19."


    He seems like a reliable person to me. Without knowing more about it, I am inclined to assume he is right. But I cannot hold a strong view about this. I don't really know if this has been politicized. So I guess if it were up to me, the political comments about this topic should be allowed here. However, people making these comments should acknowledge that many researchers sincerely believe HCQ is not effective. These researchers are not all engaged in a conspiracy against HCQ. Saying they are takes politics too far. An issue can be somewhat political, and somewhat not political.


    Not all opposition to cold fusion is political. There are other reasons people reject it. Mainly because they have not done their homework. The published opponents I have read, other than Huizenga, knew nothing about the subject. They got the details wrong. For example, they thought mixing might be a problem with F&P's calorimeter. That's incorrect, for technical reasons spelled out by F&P. That's not politics. It is just sloppy work.


    (Details about mixing are here, p. 25: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf)