Weeks ago, the Washington Post asked readers What energy sources offer the most promise for the U.S.?
LENR won.
Today the journal noted that win, with author Neil Irwin citing the strong community support:
After four weeks of the first Wonkblog CrowdSourced, there is a consensus! Asked to explain what you view as the most promising energy source for America’s economic and environmental future, you favored one answer, heavily, above the others: Low energy nuclear reactions, or cold fusion. Nine of the top ten vote-getters favored this answer. (Perhaps with an assist from the website ColdFusionNow.org, which urged readers to participate).
Well, I must add Harry Veeder posted a call on Vortex-l first, and that’s what got us all started, and thanks go to Lenr-forum.com for spreading the word far and wide. (If I ever get my Subscription button working, I may be able to help even more. It might be working now, so subscribe again please and let me know!) And no doubt more than a few E-Cat World readers contributed to this win.
Featured are two top comments, the first from Tom888 who wrote:
There is little doubt that the future energy will be LENR, aka cold fusion. The field developed off the mainstream over the past years and we are at a point where commercial applications are being prepared for roll out now by several companies. This is mainly engineering and inventor driven, whereas basic science is lagging behind understanding the phenomenon. Nevertheless, the effect is indisputable now and the prospect is clean, unlimited source of thermal energy at very low cost. Today, June 03, this subject is being discussed at the EU in Brussels – questions are funding and how to move forward. In US, the company National Instruments is involves in supplying control software for LENR reactors, Siemens is looking at it, research is being done at many places (U of Missouri, NAS, SRI…). Several companies in US announced commercial LENR heaters within the coming months.
Those reactors are typically small, table top devices, overall low-tech, which can be bundled to larger units for heating, steam and electricity generation. This puts an end to CO2 problems and oil wars.
And PeterRoe wrote:
While it makes sense to continue to use existing ‘renewable’ energy sources such as solar, hydro and tidal power where available, all these, together with fossil fuels and nuclear will soon be obsolete. The energy source of the future is the phenomenon of cold fusion, also known as LENR etc.
Before skeptics dismiss this as fantasy, they need to do a bit of research. Several parties have recently claimed breakthroughs at kilowatt levels from cold fusion reactors including Brillouin, Defkalion Green Technologies and Leonardo Corporation (Andrea Rossi), and a number of very serious researchers are reporting positive results.
The current leader of the field seems to be Rossi, who recently had one of his devices tested by a group of independent scientists, under the auspices of a major Swedish power consortium. The test results clearly confirmed his claim that he has invented a practical cold fusion reactor. Through his agent ecat.com, he is also offering to install a 1MW thermal plant free of charge to a suitable host organisation, in order to publicly demonstrate the technology in action.
And that’s how it will roll. There’s no stopping it. We will have a clean energy future, with a green technology to power this planet, and beyond.
Trolls continue typing, but no matter. The efforts are nothing but the itch on a phantom limb, soon to fade away as a new vision takes hold.
Cold Fusion Now!
KEVMO ~ reach me at muawiyah@hotmail.com ~ more good stuff.
There is, of course, a problem with WarshPost polls ~ they have an Obama affinitive audience, so anything that looks like something for nothing they’re for it.
Sitting here in my quiet corner of rural south west France I, perhaps rather naively, posted a comment or two on the Washington Post blog which is the subject of this thread. I must admit that now I can appreciate much better the struggle of this site in trying to inform the prejudiced, the ignorant and/or the arrogant. The scientific observations are simply not of interest to some people. They have ideas in their heads that (a) cold fusion is junk science and/or (b) the phenomenon goes against “established theory”.
What has happened to corrupt modern science? Either (a) political/financial considerations trump observations (presumably the reason for the” junk science” assertion) or (b) established theory trumps an observation, when all who understand the very basis of science would have to say the theory does not apply here.
Something very similar is happening in the global warming debate. Not surprisingly, with China and India building four new coal-fired power stations each week, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are inexorably rising, whereas the model-predicted global temperature has remained static for the last 17 years. And yet, the climate modellers (whose science was “settled”, remember) twist and turn and adjust their calculations (and manipulate the data) to try and squeeze their results into the lower edge of the uncertainty band. In this example it is clear: without the alarm, the grant money dries up. However, for those doing their research into cold fusion on a shoestring budget, why do people want to kill it off? They cannot all be hot fusion researchers!
While the acceptance of cold fusion/LENR seems to be growing, there is no doubt (reinforced by some of the responses I have read recently) that there is a group of people who still seem to be intent on rubbishing the whole concept. What is their motivation, I wonder. In the light of the previous comment here “Obama affinitive audience” and the president’s recent pronouncements on climate “… put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants” one would think that a carbon-free alternative source of energy would be top of his list. Sadly, not a mention of cold fusion / LENR.
I appreciate your bewilderment. It’s difficult to wrap your head around a species that blindly refuses alternate paths to existence that offer so much more than this track.
I go to Marshall McLuhan for understanding. He said, if you want to know why a people do the things they do, look at they way they communicate.
Digital communication is instant and total; around the world in a second. Seemingly empowering individuals with hand-held devices, “communes” are established with niche information. And any information is available at any time.
Is there global warming? Yes! But, No!
In the digital world, no particular point of view has any staying power to last long enough for a coherent “policy”.
Those of the previous hardware environment have utilized technology in attempts to keep the status quo, a “policy” that benefits few, without realizing the ultimate futility. The new paradigm is an assault to their identity, a new mental imprint must form. No one likes to change (I don’t!). McLuhan stressed, when identity is threatened, violence occurs. So they will “die hard”.
There is not much we can do about these great tides of change. We can only arm ourselves with awareness, and then try not to get too involved emotionally in a point-of-view.
Though a point of view is no longer viable, I chose to advocate one, continuing to wallow in the previous paradigm to throw in with a group of people who’ve been battered by the small-minded. But I won’t do this forever, it’s exhausting, and I feel the need to begin sampling more enjoyable pursuits.
Laugh, joke, enjoy the Last Days, and do right by yourself.
Also, our animal friends, wildlife, and First Nature environment have existed at our mercy, and it makes sense to me, to help them live on, if you can. The life on earth took a couple billion years to evolve. It seems to me we should respect that.
Thank you for the suggestion about Marshall McLuhan. Having just taken a quick look, his concept of tribalism certainly helps. When I read the unpleasant responses from some people in answer to many constructive comments, the pattern seems to be: a desire to be part of a tribe of those who knock, who attack, but who do not actually engage in any meaningful discussion.
The reason I mentioned the global warming debate (and I believed in it to start with!) is that, after many years, the science, mainly through internet blogs, is starting to prevail over the politics and the vested interests. I am sure the same has got to happen with cold fusion.
What happened to THERMACORE cold fusion (Google)?