Posts by JedRothwell

    Choose the best demo/device of AEH among the thousands of examples you have collected and you are sure that works.

    I am not in a position to choose anything. I have no influence over the researchers. Most of them are dead, as I said, and it is very difficult to make dead people do things.

    Bill Gates and others are supposedly funding research, albeit at the level of sparrow's tears as they say in Japanese. Talk to him about this. Or, if you have a million dollars burning a hole in your pocket, hand it over to me and we'll talk. If you don't have the money, you are telling me I should bell the cat. It is easy to propose impossible remedies.

    Joint your strengths, equipments and economic resources you and the other cold fusionists already have and you will get all what you need.

    Oh sure. That worked so well in the 1990s, when hundreds of replications were published. Those researchers got all they needed. Yeah. Like being reassigned as stock room clerks. You know so much about the history of cold fusion! I stand in awe. As in aw shucks.

    Jed - I think you are not reading my post carefully? What I say is pretty uncontentious.

    Let me explain.

    What you describe has been done time after time, by experts, in replicated experiments. In some cases input is large compared to output, but in other cases it has been small, or in some cases there is no input power. More to the point, input is always electricity, usually quite stable, that can be measured with high precision. It is not "high energy input" unless that is how you label electrolysis. (Why would that be "high energy"? By what standard?)

    So it is not noise and it cannot be used to call into question the output power. It does not degrade the measurement of output power. Claiming that it is "high" or that it should be "low" is unscientific. You have no technical reason for saying that. It is an arbitrary demand. I suppose you make it to give yourself an excuse to dismiss the results.

    In response to that blather I say: oh give us a break. A high energy break.

    I think it is pretty clear. One replicable experiment showing clear anomalies explainable only as nuclear activity, in a system in which there are no high energy inputs.

    Ah, but 14,000 replicable experiments in 180 labs don't count. Because . . . they just don't. Because you refuse to look at them, I suppose. Got it.

    You might want to broaden it: if clear replicable anomalies are found at all it would be pretty exciting, but not necessarily LENR.

    Ah yes. Just because it produces ~10,000 times more energy than any chemical reaction; no chemical changes; helium commensurate with fusion, and tritium, that does not mean it is LENR. It might be something else. Not nuclear. Sure. Because . . . ummm . . . Well, just because! It isn't as if you have a reason for this blather. It isn't as if you have ever found an error or anything. You are a "skeptic" meaning you can say anything that pops into your head, without a shred of evidence, and it is automatically true. You get a free pass.

    Oh give us a break.

    He wants us to believe that the only thing stopping cold fusion from taking over the world is the evil mainstream science community protecting its turf and its funding.

    I don't "want" you to do anything, but if you want to know what happened, I suggest you read what the mainstream scientists wrote. See for yourself. Read Beaudette's book, and Mallove. Read the Fleischmann - Miles letters. You apparently know nothing about this history, so I do not see why you are so sure this did not happen the way Beaudette and Mallove described it.

    Here are mainstream scientists, in their own words:


    Judge for yourself how much they know, and how well they summarized the experiments here:

    Are you incapable of reading anything or doing any homework? You can't think for yourself? You make assertion after assertion contrary to the facts. Has it occurred to you to first learn what the facts are, and to read what these mainstream scientists themselves said and did? I get that you will not take my word for anything, but you won't even take the word of the mainstream scientists themselves for anything! Robert Park went around bragging about how he "rooted out and fired" cold fusion researchers. He did this in front of a cheering crowd of people at the APS. He wrote it in the Washington Post and elsewhere. You don't believe he said and did what he himself bragged about!

    This demonstrates your lack of scientific understanding. After all the posts about the evaporation rate equation, you write "in room temperature conditions". What was the bucket temperature, as reported by Mizuno? What was the room air temperature, as reported by Mizuno?

    Make them any reasonable temperature you like, from 20 to 30 deg C. Mizuno, I, and many other worked there, year round. You can see from the photos that we were not sweating profusely or freezing, so obviously it was no different from any other laboratory in any university. You can see there are papers and equipment everywhere, so there was no fan blowing at 20 mph, as you previously asserted there might be.

    You can easily test this. Go to a room at 20 to 30 deg C, put a bucket of water into it, and see what happens. Try it at different temperatures. You will not be able to set any temperature or humidity level that evaporates a bucket overnight.

    One of the photos is on p. 30, here:

    The cell was placed behind the blue equipment cabinet, which is behind Ms. Kawasaki. Between the cabinet and the wall, in a narrow space. There are no fans back there.

    To summarize what I concluded and what you refuse to acknowledge, I said that a 'room temperature' bucket of water (i.e. 20-25C) or colder was unlikely to evaporate overnight unless a high airflow rate of dry air was passed over it.

    Unlikely my ass. It is absolutely impossible! The airflow would have to so high the wind would knock you over. It would blow the papers, bottles and equipment in the room all over the place. But that is not what you "concluded." You "concluded" again and again and again that it did evaporate, and you also "concluded" that rats drank the water, as I just quoted you saying. I quote you, I point to your message, and you deny you said what you said. Who do you think you are kidding?

    And if you now say you did not "conclude" that, you must admit the cell was hot and it evaporated the water, which means there had to have been anomalous heat, because it happened day after day. That, you can never admit, so you better go back to your magically evaporating room conditions and thirsty rats.

    No problem, infact I wrote: "or a fusionist group at your choice"

    Are capable cold fusionists all died or retaired?

    Yes, that is what I said. You can look at the list of authors and confirm that. There are still a few at work, and a few new ones such as Beiting and Duncan.

    Also, how would I choose a group? Where would the money and equipment come from? Are you going to provide a few million dollars?

    No money... not exactly, for example when you want (I saw here by LF members) in few days thousands of US Dollars have been collected for repair the Mizuno's Lab.

    $8,000. Unfortunately the damage to the SEM will cost $17,000 to repair. I do not know where or whether he can come up with $9,000 more.

    His laboratory has at least $100,000 in other equipment, as you might estimate from the photo of me in it ( The power supply on the bottom left alone cost $16,000. If you think anyone can do a cold fusion experiment for $8,000 starting from scratch -- even if they work for free -- you know nothing about experiments. If someone comes up with a fully equipped lab and a staff of 5 people being paid by someone else, then perhaps they can do a cold fusion experiment. But only if they happen to know a lot about electrochemistry. By "a lot" I mean, for example, they have to be able to understand this paper, which is over my head. Test yourself and see how well you understand it:

    It is not quite relevant to cold fusion, but it is the level of electrochemical knowledge you must have. Evidently so, because all of the researchers I know who succeeded had this kind of knowledge. Mizuno, for example, worked in this lab as a post-doc.

    Ok Jed. As predicted, your response is that I am too stupid and ignorant to understand the facts pertaining to cold fusion

    That's absurd. How can I know whether you can understand the papers or not?!? You have not addressed them. You have not made any technical assertions. I have no idea whether you understand or not. If you want to pass some sort of test, I suggest you read McKubre's paper and summarize it here. I'll let you know if you understand or not.

    Are you saying I have done nothing to help you understand? Uploading 4,000 plus papers doesn't help? Making an introductory video that people have watched 106,000 times does not help? What more can I do? I am open to any suggestion.

    What actually needs to be accomplished to move LENR from a internet cult topic to something of real impact?

    Well if it is a cult, it is mostly off-line, not on the internet. Call it a cult of the world's top electrochemists, mostly dead ones of the 20th century.

    What needs to be accomplished is a return to the scientific method, and the traditions of academic science --

    Scientists have to realize once again that science is based on experiments, and that when replicated experiments conflict with theory, the experiments always win; theory always loses. That is the bedrock basis of science. When you stop doing that, you are doing a perverse form of religion, not science. Experiments are the one and only way to discover the truth. Nothing else counts.

    People need to read the evidence and think about it carefully, rather than come up with imaginary reasons to reject experiments they know nothing about.

    People need to understand that science is based on instrument readings and facts, not opinions or bluster. As I said, McKubre's graph overrules every scientist on earth tied together. It make no difference what anyone says. The heat has been widely replicated. It is real, and the energy is thousands of times more than any chemical reaction can produce. The helium and tritium are real. No one can dispute that. As proof of that, no "skeptic" has even tried to dispute it, except Morrison and Shanahan. I invite you to judge Morrison for yourself. Always read original sources:

    What the quotation means to those who are scientifically inclined is that there are unreported variables of significance to the problem, whose absence makes it impossible to draw a certain conclusion.

    You are saying that scientifically inclined people would take seriously the hypothesis that a bucket of water will evaporate overnight in room temperature conditions.

    No, they won't. That is a lunatic assertion. Also, anyone who takes it seriously for one moment will put a bucket of water into a room to see what happens, something that you will never do.

    if you are able, REPEAT YOU (or a fusionist group at your choice) by yourself, showing a clear experiment that demonstrates the CF in front of the WW scientific community.

    I am not an electrochemist, and I do not have a lab, so obviously I am not capable of doing this. However, many scientists who had labs did this. Unfortunately, they are nearly all retired or dead. Dead people cannot do experiments, so what you are demanding is impossible. I suppose that is why you are demanding it.

    Demonstrations were done in the past at SRI, ENEA and elsewhere, but you demand that they be done now, by dead people, which moves the goalposts to a place that can never be reached. Suppose we manage to bring people back from the dead and do these demonstrations. I am sure you will move the goalposts again. Let me guess that you would then say we must make a fully functional cold fusion powered automobile before you will believe it.

    There are some other problems with your demand, such as the fact that there is no money for such a demonstration, and practically no labs that would allow it.

    Having said that . . . There are some experiments underway in the U.S. and elsewhere. I am pretty sure I could go visit them, because I have visited them in the past; I am on good terms with the researchers; and the researchers know that I would understand what I see, and I would not waste their time, or make up fatuous nonsense about the projects. I don't think they would be so happy to have you visit, but you could ask. I strongly recommend you first learn something about the research, and you stop making up nonsense about it.

    That's because you refuse to understand the situation and what I write about it. That's your fault, not mine.

    The quotation you supplied does NOT support your strawman argument.

    I understand perfectly well. The quotation means you think a bucket of water might evaporate overnight in room temperature conditions. You have said that dozens of times in many different ways. You cling to that belief because if that is not the case, obviously Mizuno's cell produced far more energy than any chemical reaction could. That is the only thing you can come up with to deny the obvious.

    That fact that you cannot or will not face reality is your fault, not mine.

    All this arguing will resolve nothing. Reproducing Mizuno's best results in "plain sight" and by a credible test lab would.

    That was done hundreds of times, by Fleischmann and later by others. You can see a video of that which -- if you have the eyes to see, and you understand high-school level physics -- will prove to you that the heat is anomalous. However, I do not think you will look, and even if you did, I doubt you would understand. That video was broadcast in Canada and Japan, which I suppose constitutes "plain sight."

    Or perhaps main line scientists have concluded the evidence for cold fusion is not convincing.

    You can determine that easily enough. Read what they say. Compare it to the actual published claims. You will see that they do not know shit from shinola about cold fusion, and they have no basis whatever to conclude it is convincing or not convincing.

    In 1941, before the attack on Pearl Harbor, many U.S. experts in aviation declared that Japanese military aircraft were inferior to U.S. ones, and their pilots were nearsighted, half-trained, and incompetent. These people really were experts in aviation, but they knew nothing about Japan, its aircraft, or its military training. It turned out the Japanese Zero fighters were better than any allied aircraft in the Pacific, and their pilots were superbly trained veterans of the war in China. In the early phase of the war, they shot Americans and British out of the sky with hardly any losses. The point is, even if you are a genuine expert, when you have no specific information about a situation, you cannot judge it or pontificate about it. Being an aviation expert does not give you ESP knowledge of Japan. Being a scientist does not give you an ability to judge the evidence for cold fusion when you have never seen that evidence and you have no idea what it is.

    This is a strawman argument, which, in case you didn't know, means it is a false construct

    No, it is a lunatic assertion that you have made repeatedly, and that you will make again, as soon as you feel like trolling the audience here again. I will not bother to look through your messages to find it. You will again deny you said it even if I do. Here is one example; there are countless more:

    "What I did was to assume a large hot object was dropped in a bucket of water on a low humidity day in a well-ventilated abandoned laboratory, possibly overrun with vermin, and attempt to compute what might have happened, and then compare that to what was claimed to have happened. In my analysis of the situation, I found that the missing information on air flow and humidity was crucial to judging the what caused the reported amounts of evaporation."

    Mizuno's bucket of water

    You also repeatedly said the cell was hot because they heated it, and when I and other pointed out that was three days earlier, you ignored that and said again "because they heated it" and again, and again, and again. No doubt you will deny this too.

    I cannot tell whether you actually believe these lunatic assertions or whether you are trolling and trying to subvert a serious discussion with nonsense and chaos.

    MP surely had the capability so I asked the Report but you have not.

    What exactly is your point? MP may have had the capability. I wouldn't know about that. I do not know of any replication there, or any attempt to replicate there. If they did one, they did not publish it. But what does that mean? Are you suggesting that because they did not replicate, that means the replications at Los Alamos and BARC don't count? They are invalid because a lab that you named did not do the experiment? Hundreds of labs were capable of replicating cold fusion eventually, given a few years. We know that because they did replicate. In 1989 it was more difficult and there were fewer labs ready to go, with the equipment and materials in hand.

    There were ~50 labs that tried to replicate and failed in 1989 and 1990. The reasons they failed were not clear at the time, but are now understood. See:

    According to Jed, there have been literally thousands of replications of cold fusion at hundreds of laboratories.

    Actually that is not according to me. That is according to some graduate student at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, who went through the literature and counted 14,720 positive experiments. It was published in Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96 102. I cannot vouch for the numbers. I sure as heck am not going to go through papers counting replications!

    And yet, not a single one of these hundreds of laboratories has been able to assemble a reactor, gather an audience, and say “here is cold fusion in action.” Why not?

    They did this at several major labs. You don't happen to know about it, but for some reason you assume you do know. You make up all kinds of assertions about cold fusion that are not in evidence. Here is a picture of a possibly recognizable person who has visited ENEA and probably saw cold fusion "in action" -- as you put it.

    (I wasn't there so I can't be sure, but why wouldn't they show him the experiments? The person leaning over is Lowell Wood.)

    Actually, seeing cold fusion in action is about as exciting as watching paint dry, as Ed Storms put it. Unless you understand calorimetry, you wouldn't know what you are seeing. If you cannot understand McKubre's paper, for example, you wouldn't understand what you see in the experiment either. It is just a bunch of numbers on instruments. Do you understand this paper? I am sure the people in the photo above do.

    Today... but yesterday you stated:

    "I have papers and reports from every nation in the world".

    My suspecttion that your words were a large exaggeration it was right.

    What you say makes no sense. The libraries at Los Alamos, Aarhus University, Georgia Tech, and the ICCF proceedings include papers from every nation in the world in which cold fusion has been done. Obviously, it has not been done in some third world countries. There are only a few reports from Mexico, for example. Papers from every lab in the world that did experiments and published them can probably be found in these three libraries.

    This stuff is not a MP scientific test Report.

    I did not say it was. I said this is the only document I have from the Max-Planck institute.

    Anyway this is the evidence that your assumption about "people in the world capable of replicating the experiment in 1989, and every one of them did replicate before the end of the year" it's the usual cold fusionists' propaganda.

    This has nothing to do with my statement about 20 people. That statement is not propaganda; it is a matter of fact that only about 20 people replicated in 1989. According to the tally by Fritz Will, by September 1990 there were 92 replications. There were only about 20 in 1989 because:

    1. Only a few people knew how to do electrochemistry that well, mainly people who were close to Fleischmann and Pons, and got assistance from them. Later, the knowledge become more widespread.
    2. Only a few had fully equipped laboratories and the instruments they needed, such as the Seebeck calorimeter that Oriani happened to have.
    3. It takes months to set up a cold fusion experiment. Many people did not finish preparations until 1990.

    It means that neither after 1989 (and until now) the worldwide scientific community (including MP) never confirmed the F&P claim of CF.

    In experimental science "confirmation" means only one thing: replication at high signal to noise ratios. How many replications you need to confirm something may be a matter of opinion. Some people might say 5, others might hold out for 10 from quality laboratories. For you or anyone else to doubt a result that has been replicated in 180 laboratories is far beyond any rational scientific standard.

    There is no other way to confirm a claim. There is no other standard. It makes no difference what your "worldwide scientific community" thinks. Science is not a popularity contest, and not a matter of opinion. The only relevant criteria are instrument readings. The data in this graph overrules all opinions of every scientist on earth, and it overrules all theoretical objections:…loads/McKubre-graph-2.jpg

    Replicated experiments are not the gold standard of truth. They are the only standard of truth. Your standard, the opinion of your imaginary worldwide scientific community, has no place in science. You might as well point to an Ouija Board, and insist it is the ultimate arbiter of truth. I say your community is "imaginary" because you have not taken a public opinion poll, so you have no idea what opinions are held. You do not know whether the people who hold positive or negative opinions have any knowledge of the subject. Most skeptics I have spoken with had no knowledge, so their opinion is worth nothing, any more than the opinion of a policeman or grocery clerk who knows nothing about science.

    A small library of a private is not same thing of large IAEA database (it’s absolutely incomparable), anyway If we are talking only of serious and high qualified Labs, about German nation can you show the official test Report of Max-Plank Institute?

    We are talking about papers copied from the libraries at Los Alamos, Aarhus University, Georgia Tech, and the ICCF proceedings. See:

    The only thing I know from the Max-Planck institute is here:

    I'm a bit skeptics to believe that you have checked all what they did in all nations of the world, nothing comes up also after 1989.

    I have papers and reports from every nation in the world, for 1989 and every year after that. Over 5,000 reports in all. Collected by Storms, Britz and me. No doubt I missed some. I have heard they keep some research secret in China, but they also publish a lot. I have many reports in Japanese, and I am confident I covered most of the work there. Most of these projects were also reported in English.

    I do not know what you mean by "nothing comes up after 1989." Most replications were after 1989, as I said. You claimed that all the world was interested and there was a flurry of research. People have often said that, but there is no evidence it happened. If there was a flurry, most of the people never bothered to report their results. There were only a few serious, documented attempts to replicate in 1989 and 1990. Most of them succeeded. By 1991, public interest in the field was long gone, but replications increased and the quality of the work improved.

    1) High output -- We need single reactors that will heat up to levels FAR HIGHER than a control both in terms of COP and in terms of total power. A COP of ten won't convince the skeptics if the output is only a watt and the input is one tenth of a watt. But a hundred watts in and a thousand watts of power out is far more convincing.

    2) Self Sustained output --

    Belling the Cat

    LONG ago, the mice had a general council to consider what measures they could take to outwit their common enemy, the Cat. Some said this, and some said that; but at last a young mouse got up and said he had a proposal to make, which he thought would meet the case. "You will all agree," said he, "that our chief danger consists in the sly and treacherous manner in which the enemy approaches us. Now, if we could receive some signal of her approach, we could easily escape from her. I venture, therefore, to propose that a small bell be procured, and attached by a ribbon round the neck of the Cat. By this means we should always know when she was about, and could easily retire while she was in the neighbourhood."

    This proposal met with general applause, until an old mouse got up and said: "That is all very well, but who is to bell the Cat?" The mice looked at one another and nobody spoke. Then the old mouse said:


    Suggestions for what can be done with what we actually have now, and that we can actually accomplish, are helpful. Your suggestions boil down to an Anna Russell statement: Things would be so different, if they were not as they are.

    Good scientists believe what they think is true, not what other people tell them.

    In that case we suffer from a deficit of good scientists. I assure you, most of them care about funding first and last. And parking spaces, according the Dean at a Major University. They are in it for the money. What would you expect, given projects funded at billions of dollars that have made no progress for decades, such as hot fusion or the SDI? What kind of people would you expect work in such jobs? Do you think someone sincerely interested in progress or science would happily devote an entire career to a dead-end project? They remind me of IBM programmers in the 1980s who happily devoted years to projects that they, I, and everyone else knew would never see the light of day, such as IBM PC DOS, and mainframe projects. They pulled down big salaries. That's all they cared about. They resembled the people in the Dilbert comic strip.

    THHuxley, from whom I take my nom de plume:

    My convictions, positive and negative, on all the matters of which you speak, are of long and slow growth and are firmly rooted. . . .

    Huxley was exceptional in many ways. Most prominently because he was honest, and willing to give credit where it is due, a quality which was rare in the 19th century and practically extinct today. Patrick Geddes described a famous incident with Huxley, in which Huxley declared himself wrong, and his student right:

    [When Geddes was] instructed by Huxley to examine the radula of a whelk, he found that the mechanism was different from that described by his master. Huxley told him to look again, then looked again himself and slapped his student's shoulder in delight: "'Pon my word, you're right!," he declared. "You got me! I was wrong! Capital! I must publish this for you!" -- and had the discovery published by Geddes in the Zoological Society's Transactions explicitly as a correction of his own work.

    - T. H. Huxley A Biography by Cyril Bibby, Page 111

    I have seen this incident described elsewhere. It is famous. Why is it so famous? Because it may have been the only time in history a professor did that. Other professors would deny what they see under the microscope. They would ridicule and humiliate the student, sack him at the first opportunity, and then steal the idea and publish it themselves. Perhaps I exaggerate, but that happens far more often in academia than the good-hearted Mr. Chips-style Huxley incident. The only academic scientist I know who would act the way Huxley did is T. Mizuno. The others would grudgingly admit they are wrong the next day, after arguing and ridiculing the young person in front of an audience, as Oppenheimer did to Dyson (rather famously).

    Naturally, people do this in other professions. It is typical primate behavior, after all. But it happens less often in other walks of life. With programming or bricklaying you have to get the job done. You have to get the product out the door. If a young person knows how to do it well, his supervisor may well try to get him fired, but company owner is more likely to intervene. Results count and if you do a bad job you lose customers and you go out of business. Whereas scientists can do a bad job for decades and no one notices. As they say, academic politics are particularly vicious because the stakes are so low.

    2011 Gran Sasso: Claimed discovery of muon neutrinos whose speed exceeds the speed of light in empty space. The relative difference was claimed to be significantly larger than the statistical and systematic error together. (See some comments: Neutrino stories move faster than the speed of science.) The claim was withdrawn by CERN in a press release on June 8, 2012. Adam T. et al.

    Perhaps you should not have included that one? It doesn't look good.

    I am acquainted with modern science. I subscribe to Scientific American. The breakthroughs you list are impressive, but nothing like the breakthroughs and the progress of the early 20th century. Perhaps we really have reached the end of history, and there are no more big discoveries to be made. I doubt that. The physicists I know doubt that. I think it is more likely that funding, peer-review and other attributes of modern scientific are dysfunctional. Note that peer-review as we know it did not exist in 1920. Einstein and others were surprised and nonplussed when it was introduced. I regard it mainly as a method by which old establishment scientists suppress young scientists and steal their ideas. I will grant that Mel Miles and other think highly of it.

    In any case, all of these breakthroughs together are not 0.1% as important as cold fusion will be, if it is ever funded and made into a practical source of energy. I have no doubt it can be made practical, because it has already achieved the temperatures and power density of a fission reactor core, in reactions lasting for weeks, as I explained in my video. If it can happen once, it can happen a billion times a day. However, I am increasingly pessimistic that research will ever be funded. So, it will probably be forgotten.

    Are you seriously? After the clamor aroused by F&P announce, all the world explored the cold fusion D+D in Pd hypothesis getting nothing as they claimed.

    That is not even slightly true. That's light years away from true. All the world, my ass. There were not 20 people in the world capable of replicating the experiment in 1989, and every one of them did replicate before the end of the year. Most of the others were trying to tune a piano with a sledgehammer. (See, p. 10, 11) Some of them reportedly confused the anode and the cathode.

    In the years that followed, more people were able to replicate, but there was never a time when "all the world" could do this.

    Let me again suggest you learn something about cold fusion before commenting. Read the critiques in the mass media, and compare them to the facts. You will see the authors of these critiques know nothing about the subject. None of them published a paper in literature as far as I know, and I would know, wouldn't I?

    Here is a depressing example:

    Huizenga and Frank Close are exceptions, of course. I suggest you read Huizenga's book. See for yourself. Read Beaudette's summary, which I summary-summarized here:


    You ignore completely modern Nuclear Science and tests on matter. Explore IAEA database and you will discover that nuclear studies, huge number of tests and results are well beyond 1950 and continue to nowadays.

    How many breakthroughs have there been to rival Heisenberg, Debye, M. Knudsen, Bragg, Dirac, Compton, de Broglie or Born? You will note, those people have their names all over modern physics. The rules and laws and major theories are all in their names. Do you think we have reached the end of history, and there is nothing more to be discovered? Physics are settled now? I doubt that! I have spent a lot of time with physicists. When you ask three of them a question, you get five different answers.

    It appears to me we now have extremely well funded incremental progress mainly confirming and extending things that people discovered in the 1920s. People with names like Debye and Dirac. Research is extremely well funded for a very good reason. Because funding is power and influence. Billions of dollars pouring into gigantic machines such as ITER are a goldmine for contractors and governments. That's why they do it. It has nothing to do with science, energy or progress. If it did, they would pour a few tens of millions into cold fusion instead.

    Even the Hubble Telescope is mainly about money. See the book "The Hubble Wars: Astrophysics Meets Astropolitics in the Two-Billion-Dollar Struggle over the Hubble Space Telescope." No one in Washington wants to fund cold fusion for a few million dollars when they can piss away billions of dollars a year indefinitely on hot fusion. Or the International Space Station. Or star wars space defense (SDI), which has cost $400 billion so far, and will cost $1 trillion. There is zero chance it will work effectively, and counter-measures to defeat it would cost a fraction of 1% of that $1 trillion.

    As I said, no one in Washington DC gives a fart about science. The only thing they care about are lavishly funded research projects in their home districts. These projects, such as hot fusion, run for decades without producing any useful results and without contributing to progress. That's a feature, not a bug. Anyone who comes up with a cheaper, more promising alternative to these big ticket programs -- such as cold fusion -- will have his reputation trashed in the mass media and will be fired. There are many examples outside of cold fusion.