Cold Fusion Now takes a break for the holidays with family, and it’s great to be home. I am staying in an old Philadelphia row home that has had the same phone number for 81 years!
This lovely Santa’s Workshop display has been on the fireplace mantle since the mid-1940s. No doubt Santa has been down with CF since way back.
There are so many problems in our world; so many disputes and injustice, and we are looking at some pretty hard times next year. But we won’t make it as a species blaming each other for all the wrongs.
I’m challenging myself to choose peace and forgiveness, for my own sake, and for all life on Earth. Will you try it too?
A friend of mine sent me this little story. As I read it, I was reminded how perception is an interpretation of experience.
It’s not easy to get along, but we can if we choose to.
THAT GREEN THING
While checking out, a young cashier suggested to me that I should bring my own grocery bags next time because plastic bags were harmful to the environment. “Sorry,” I retorted, “We didn’t have this green thing back in my day.” “That’s the problem,” responded the clerk. “Your generation didn’t care enough to save our environment for us.” She was right — our generation didn’t have the green thing.
Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store and they sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled. But we didn’t have the green thing.
We walked up stairs, because there wasn’t an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn’t have the green thing in our day.
Back then we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line using wind and solar power, and our kids got hand-me-downs. But that young lady is right; we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.
Back then we had one TV or radio in the house — not one in every room, and it had a screen the size of a handkerchief, not the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand. When we mailed a fragile item, we used wadded up newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or bubble wrap. We didn’t burn gasoline to cut the lawn; we used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working and didn’t need to run on electrical treadmills. But she’s right; we didn’t have the green thing back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty. We refilled pens with ink and we replaced razor blades instead of throwing the “disposable” away. Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a taxi. We had one electrical outlet per room, and we didn’t need a computerized gadget receiving a signal beamed from a satellite to find the nearest pizza place. But isn’t it sad that the current generation laments how wasteful we were?
Please forward this to other selfish old farts who need a lesson in conservation, but beware — don’t make us mad. We don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to piss us off! by Planet Proctor
–from Suzy & Gerry www.Laughtears.com
Cold Fusion Now!
Related Links
Suzy Williams What the Frack Is Going On? by Ruby Carat February 18, 2011
December 29, 2010 Energy: America’s Next Space RaceREAD NOW.
The Michigan US Senate race includes over half-a-dozen Republicans vying for Democrat incumbent Debbie Stabenow’s long-held seat, but only one has LENR on their platform.
Former Juvenile Court Judge Randy Hekman states his energy policy on the campaign website www.RandyHekman2012.com:
8. Energy: The simple reality is that our economy depends on energy derived from coal, oil and natural gas to function. Energy exploration – mining and drilling – provide needed jobs and the energy these industries produce keep our economy moving. We need to end the policies that subsidize inefficient sources of energy such as ethanol, wind and geothermal. The best alternative energy program is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). We must work to develop this energy program. Randy Hekman, candidate for US Senate from Michigan
Randy Hekman has a long history of association with LENR science. He formed his own company in 1996 to provide energy research and consultation for LENR.
In 2004, along with Dr. Peter Hagelstein, Dr. Michael McKubre, Dr. Talbot Chubb, and Professor David J. Nagel, Mr. Hekman helped to prepare the report presented at the Department of Energy Review of the field that sought funding for research. The results of that Review, and a critique of the issues related to the Department of Energy and LENR, are compiled by Jed Rothwellhere.
Mr. Hekman prefers the term LENR to ‘cold fusion’ saying that though the process is nuclear, it “involves neither fusion nor fission.” In addition, he says,
“Because of its nature, LENR does not require heavy shielding nor does it produce radioactive waste. It offers incredible potential to provide inexpensive and safe energy for our nation, and a boost to our economy.”
We sent Mr. Hekman a few questions about his experiences with LENR and here are his responses.
Senate candidate Randy Hekman supports LENR.
Q&A with Candidate Randy Hekman
CFN You are running for the US Senate seat from Michigan and have publicly stated support for LENR science and technology. What is the response when you discuss new energy?
RH I have spoken to many people in our state and elsewhere about LENR over the past 14 years that I have been working full or part time in this field. When I am given a full opportunity to explain how LENR works, I find people are supportive. The ultimate proof, however, will be when people become willing to invest major dollars in the technology. So far, this has eluded us.
CFN You believe that coal, oil and natural gas are still important. What do you see as the role of fossil fuels in the economy?
RH More than 1.7 trillion barrels of crude oil (these are proven reserves) can be found in the 50 states of our nation, plus enormous amounts of natural gas and coal. Until we get LENR on stream, we will need to use these resources to allow our economy to recover from the malaise it is in. But I firmly believe that LENR technology is the means of meeting the world’s energy needs into the future. It is safe, inexpensive, virtually inexhaustible, and causes no environmental damage. In fact, it can be used to convert spent fission fuel into benign elements.
CFN The BP/Horizon oil catastrophe caused damage to both the economy and environment, and the federal response was weak. As a member of Senate, how would you have responded differently?
RH The damage to the environment was significant at the time and costly to remediate, but not for long term. Human beings will at times make mistakes. We must do all in our power to minimize the likelihood and severity of mistakes, but deal with life when mistakes occur and go on. I am not overly put out by the federal government’s response except their reluctance to open up exploration more quickly.
CFN You state that “We need to end the policies that subsidize inefficient sources of energy such as ethanol, wind and geothermal.” Why do you call these sources of energy ‘inefficient’?
RH Without government subsidies, these approaches to alternate energy could not work. Government has a very poor record of picking winners and losers. Let market forces do their thing to bring the winners to the top and losers off the scale. LENR can become a powerhouse because it is good, not because government feeds it with resources.
CFN Why do you call Low Energy Nuclear Reactions LENR the ‘best alternative energy program’?
RH I am totally convinced that LENR is an energy source that is virtually limitless and can be used in small and very large applications safely and durably. I have studied it long enough to become totally convinced it is real and the wave of the future.
CFN In 2004, you were part of a group that presented a survey of the field of condensed matter nuclear science to the Department of Energy in a bid to include LENR science in their energy research funding mix. How would you characterize the outcome?
RH I was a part of that group. I was there when our group made its presentations to the panel of experts. The panel was impressed, as they should have been, with a description of the data supporting LENR experiments. But they were rolling their eyes when our team tried to describe the theories behind the data. We tried to say it was “cold fusion.” I am totally convinced it is neither fusion nor fission, but neutron-catalyzed nuclear reactions utilizing the weak force rather than the strong force.
CFN Recent demonstrations of Andrea A. Rossi’sEnergy Catalyzer and announcements of other products planned for release next year by researchers in Greece and Italy have generated alot of excitement from the public, as well as some mainstream press. What changes, if any, have you noticed in the public awareness as these technologies are being developed.
RH I agree there has been growing news on the subject, but I am VERY skeptical of Mr. Rossi’s work, based on his excessive secrecy and his sketchy background. On the other hand, however, more and more legitimate scientists are following with great interest the work of Lewis Larsen and his partner, Allan Widom. I feel they accurately explain this phenomenon.
CFN Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently mentioned cold fusion in an interview with the Washington Examiner. What do think brought cold fusion to his attention? Are you aware of any other political candidate who supports condensed matter nuclear science?
RH I’m sorry, but I can’t answer your question about Mitt. And no, I don’t know of others who support it.
CFN What do you see on the new energy front moving forward into 2012?
RH I’m optimistic that we will see great breakthroughs in people’s acceptance and, frankly, we need it!
See also…
US Senator Hopeful – A LENR Enthusiast! by Eli Elliott May 16, 2011
Republican Candidate Mitt Romney speaks out for Cold Fusion by Ruby Carat December 9, 2011
I finally got my hardcopy of Infinite Energy magazine.
I’m on the road, with mail forwarded here and there, so there was a delay in the November/December issue. Even though selected articles are available on their website for free, there’s nothing like having it in hand to take around.
It’s the 100th issue!
Infinite Energy started back in 1995 by Eugene Mallove, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University graduate in aeronautical engineering and environmental health sciences, respectively. He had a talent for communicating science to the public and wrote several books including “Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor“.
Dr. Mallove was also a chief science writer at MIT’s news office before resigning over their falsification of data from Fleischmann-Pons-style experiments. One of the first passionate advocates of new energy, he wrote a well-documented expose of MIT’s data manipulation in issue #24. From his own words:
“In the spring of 1991, as I was finishing Fire from Ice, and feeling increasingly uncomfortable with what was happening at MIT with respect to cold fusion, I made a fateful discovery.
Questions had already arisen about exactly how the MIT PFC-Chemistry Dept. team had analyzed their excess heat calorimetry study that pared a heavy water/palladium cell with an ordinary water/palladium cell. This was the so-called “Phase-II Calorimetry” study that had been published in the Journal of Fusion Energy. (Edited at the MIT Plasma Fusion Center—how’s that for short-circuiting peer review!)
From the pile of information that I had been collecting about the on-going work at MIT and elsewhere, I found two draft documents concerning this calorimetry that had been given to me by PFC team members during the rush toward publication. I could see immediately that there was a serious discrepancy between the unpublished, pre-processed raw data (the July 10, 1989 draft) and the final published data on the July 13, 1989 draft. (See page 11 graphs reproduced from these drafts).
At first glance, it appeared that the data had been altered between July 10th and 13th to conform to what would be most welcome to the hot fusion people—a null result for excess heat in the heavy water data. I would later publicly challenge the creation and handling of these graphs by MIT PFC staff (see extensive Exhibits J through Z-11).” —Dr. Eugene Mallove MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report IE#24
Infinite Energy issue #1 has Dr. Edmund Storms on the cover.
It was the poor treatment of cold fusion that compelled Dr. Mallove to start Infinite Energy magazine.
The very first issue was partially funded by Arthur C. Clarke who wrote “though the title may be criticized on logical grounds, I can’t really think of a better one.” It also included a letter from Clarke to then Vice-President Al Gore requesting funding for this science.
A strong supporter of cold fusion, Arthur Clarke wrote in a 1998 Science magazine article “Even more controversial than the threat of asteroid impacts is what I would call perhaps one of the greatest scandals in the history of science, the cold fusion caper.”
Arthur C. Clarke contributed several articles over the years including “2001: The Coming Age of Hydrogen Power And the Dawn of a New Era” [read] from issue #22.
That very first issue of Infinite Energy also included an article by Nobel Laureate and quantum field theorist Julian Schwinger “Cold Fusion Theory: A Brief History of Mine“. [read] He was awarded the Nobel prize in 1965 for quantum electrodynamics along with Richard Feynman and Shinichiro Tomonaga, and originated the oft-quoted “The circumstances of cold fusion are not the circumstances of hot fusion.”
Dr. Schwinger later resigned from the American Physical Society APS for their refusal to publish his papers on cold fusion theory, saying “The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.”
Contributors to issue #1 include names that are familiar to those following cold fusion developments today such as Edmund Storms with his essay “Cold Fusion: From Reasons to Doubt to Reasons to Believe” [read], Jed Rothwell’s “Very Hot Cold Fusion in Japan“, Peter Gluck with “Why Technology First“, and Bruce Klein and Dennis Cravens‘ “Cell Testing at Clean Energy Technologies“.
Pioneers like then Associate Editor Hal Fox, Tom Benson, Geoff Rohde, Andrew Rothovius, Michael T. Huffman, Nelson Ying and Charles W. Shults III contributed articles, original research and reviews.
This T-Shirt from Al Kemme Associates was advertised in Infinite Energy Vol. 1 No. 3 in 1995. I want one!
Looking at the earlier issues reveals a community of researchers and writers fully engaged about the possibilities of clean, abundant energy from hydrogen, and excited too.
Advertised in several early issues is this t-shirt design from Al Kemme Associates. Above the order form you could cut-out and mail was this description:
“Cold Fusion Lives! The definitive T-Shirt for the Cold Fusion supporter!
Grinning skull with red and yellow atomic eye sockets is guaranteed to be a hit at a scientific conference or biker convention!”
Infinite Energy magazine has profiled the major players in cold fusion/LENR/LANR/ condensed matter nuclear science and published original scientific work shunned by the mainstream “peer-reviewed” journals for seventeen years.
Experimental data and articles on speculative science were published to support independent research. Giving a voice and a platform to new energy scientists around the world, allowing the field to advance – before the Internet allowed global networked communication.
The non-profit New Energy Foundation was formed as an adjunct to the magazine in order to further support independent new energy researchers through direct funding. Donations made to the Foundation are distributed to labs that successfully apply to the Foundation. Your donation can also be earmarked for specific researchers and be assured that they will reach their labs in particular.
The death of founder Eugene Mallove in 2004 was devastating to the tight crew that operates the office. Recent losses of Technical Editor Scott Chubb earlier this year and then his uncle, long-time researcher and author Talbot Chubb, this month have also forced difficult changes.
Infinite Energy issue #100
However, Technical Editors Dr. Peter Graneau and William H. Zebuhr along with Managing Editor Christy L. Frazier have honored their work by continuing to publish cutting-edge new energy science and technology.
Struggling through a difficult economy, the recent 100th issue looks at the state of the science today, surveying scientists working in the field such as Drs. Brian Ahern, Jean-Paul Biberian, Talbot Chubb, William Collis, Dennis Cravens, John Dash, Mitchell Swartz, and Francis Tarzella.
A second status report includes remarks by Thomas Bearden, Arnold Gulko, Donald Hotson, Thomas Phipps, Jr and William Zebuhr with Dr. Cynthia K. Whitney as the lone female respondent.
It includes a review of the first commercial course on cold fusion from NuCat founder David J. Nagel, “A Model for a Sonofusion Process” by Roger Stringham, and a theoretical paper by Scott Chubb “Conventional Physics Can Explain Cold Fusion Excess Heat“.
Infinite Energy provides a critical service for scientists, students, and clean energy activists. They have generously helped our efforts at Cold Fusion Now through magazine and book donations for our educational and outreach events.
My subscription aids in that endeavor, and yours can too.
The following is a further posting in a series of articles by David French, a patent attorney with 35 years experience, which will review patents of interest touching on the field of Cold Fusion.
Pending PCT patent application by Randall Mills and Black Power Inc. – Part 1
December 12, 2011 –In response to my last posting I was sent a reference to the following PCT patent application: Electrochemical Hydrogen-Catalyst Power System with the suggestion that I might comment on it. That is the subject of this posting.
First, by way of review, a PCT application is a patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. This is a system for processing applications. It does not produce patents. The PCT system allows a single application to be filed that will cover some 135 countries. The filing remains as an application for a period up to 30 months. After that, national patent filings must be made in individual countries. But the 30 months buys time.
In this case, the application is directed to an invention by Dr Randall L. Mills of Blacklight Power, Inc. of Cranbury, New Jersey. Randall Mills and Blacklight Power have been around for a long time, since at least as early as 1991. Here’s a further commentary on both parties as found in Wikipedia.
This patent application is significant for two reasons that I will address in this post and in a following post. It demonstrates further aspects of the patenting process, and it explores the prospects that the theories of Randall Mills are relevant to the phenomena of Cold Fusion.
Addressing the patent application, it should be appreciated that Randall Mills has a track record of filing for patents. At the US patent office he is listed as having filed 40 applications since 2001. The filings transcend energy issues and address pharmaceuticals and a variety of other inventions. Clearly this person is a prolific inventor.
The immediate PCT application is interesting for several special reasons. This is an application that is still within the PCT system. It has not yet resulted in national filings before individual country patent offices. At the same time, it is based on original American patent applications. In fact, unusually, it is based on some 25 US filings listed under the title: “Priority Data:”. Each of these US applications is “provisional”. This is indicated by the use of the serial number that begins with “61/” (or “60/” in the past).
A Provisional US patent application entitles an applicant to claim the benefit of the priority accorded to its filing date for what is disclosed in the application. This is useful in filing not only later applications in the United States but also in making patent applications in countries around the world. Claiming a priority date gives an applicant an entitlement, a priority, over other inventors that might file for the same thing. It also gives priority over publications that occur after the filing date which might otherwise bar the grant of the patent. A priority filing “shelters” subsequent patent applications from the novelty-barring affects of post-priority date publications.
A priority filing date is only good for one year from the date of the earliest filing made. It must be claimed and proven when national patent applications are filed. A US Provisional application is useful primarily only to establish a priority date. The US Provisional application becomes automatically abandoned after one year. It must be replaced with a final, “Non-Provisional” application. In this case, the PCT application represents such a Non-Provisional US application. It also counts as an application in all participating countries around the world. To complete the procedures, individual “national entry” applications have to be made on exiting the PCT by month 30 or 31 from the earliest priority date.
What is unusual about this PCT filing is that it has so many provisional US applications listed on its cover. Randall Mills and Black Power Inc. have repeatedly filed Provisional applications because, presumably, they are enhancing the story and wish to have credit, a filing date, for each new section that they’re adding to the disclosure. These multiple filings usually reflect the growth of the applicants’ understanding of the invention in the course of its development. More typically, inventors simply file an initial application which is a Provisional, and then follow-up the Provisional with a final Non-Provisional application at the end of the priority year. If an inventor has had no further thoughts on his invention during the priority year, then this is the proper course to follow. Optionally filings can also be commenced directly with a Non-Provisional application.
The fact that so many Provisionals have been filed in this case probably represents both a developing understanding on the part of the inventor and the prospect that the applicant considers the invention to be very important. Multiple priority filings are appropriate if there is a prospect that others may invent something similar. Virtually all countries in the world award patents, in the case of competing applications, on the basis of the party having the earliest filing date.
In respect of this specific PCT application the earliest priority filing was made on July 30, 2010. Preserving the right to claim priority, the PCT application was filed within one year of the 1st priority filing, namely on March 17, 2011. There would not normally be an advantage in filing a PCT application earlier than the end of the priority year. Why this PCT filing was made two thirds of the way through the priority year is unexplained.
The deadline to file in the individual countries is set by the earliest priority date. That deadline is for many countries 30 months and for other countries 31 months after the earliest priority date. That sets the 30 month national entry deadline, which applies to the United States, for this application as January 30, 2012. Accordingly, we can expect that this further invention by Randall Mills will appear on a list of US filed patent applications shortly after January 30, 2012.
Under present circumstances, it is taking on the order of 2 to 3 years before the US examiner will take-up a US patent application and commence examination. That process will begin with an examiner’s search report combined with a commentary by the examiner as to whether the patent disclosure, and particularly the claims, are in order so as to support the grant of a patent. Applicants normally have at least one, or more typically several, opportunities to engage in exchanges with the examiner and make corrections that will allow the examiner to approve the application for issuance is a patent. Conveniently, at the US Patent Office it is possible to monitor this applicant-examiner exchange over the Internet, once it occurs. Following the exchange in this case could prove most interesting.
This concludes the 1st part of this posting. The 2nd part, which will be posted subsequently, will address the relevance of this application to the ColdFusion story. Summarizing shortly, this application purports to teach that electricity can be generated based on the phenomena of the formation of a shrunken hydrogen atom named by Randall Mills as a “hydrino”. Mysteriously, this disclosure makes one short reference to the possibility that the formation of hydrino atoms can contribute to a fusion event. More discussion to follow.
“I do not think it is “amazing that the media has not paid more attention to” Rossi. His claims seem astounding. They resemble those of many previous energy scams. Reporters and scientists dismiss Rossi for this reason.
The Washington Examiner’s Transcript of our interview with Mitt Romneypublished here has this mention of cold fusion from the Republican Presidential candidate:
CARNEY: What role should government have in promoting certain industries or economic activities such as homeownership, or manufacturing, renewable energy or fossil fuel energy, exports, or just advanced technology? What sort of subsidies and incentives do you favor? You had some of these in Massachusetts, I know.
ROMNEY: Very limited — my answer to your first question. I’m not an advocate of industrial policy being formed by a government. I do believe in the power of free markets, and when the government removes the extraordinary burdens that it puts on markets, why I think markets are more effective at guiding a prosperous economy than is the government.
So for instance, I would not be investing massive dollars in electric car companies in California. I think Tesla and Fisker are delightful-looking vehicles, but I somehow imagine that Toyota, Nissan, and even General Motors will produce a more cost-effective electric car than either Tesla or Fisker. I think it is bad policy for us to be investing hundreds of millions of dollars in specific companies and specific technologies, and developing those technologies.
I do believe in basic science. I believe in participating in space. I believe in analysis of new sources of energy. I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with — with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it.
But basic science, in my view, is a way that research can encourage our entire economy. And so, for instance, in Michigan, some years ago — I think it was in 2007 — I spoke there and said, you know, I think we ought to embark upon an effort to do analysis on energy research, transportation research, materials research. But again, basic research which could then be either purchased by or licensed by companies foreign and domestic.
CARNEY: For instance, nuclear power right now is getting loan guarantees under both Bush and Obama policies to help develop nuclear power more rapidly. Is that the sort of thing that you would support?
ROMNEY: My inclination would be to do this: It would be to say that – if we went to the nuclear people and they say that, you know, if you could give us our permits in three years, then we wouldn’t need any help. And so what I might be willing to do is say we will either give you your permits in three years or refund the money to you we’ve invested to build the facility or to reach this point. We will, in effect, give a guarantee that you will not be prevented from developing nuclear power by virtue of government’s malfeasance and ineffectiveness. And so rather than saying, here, we’ll give you a bunch of money to build a nuclear facility, we would instead guarantee certain government action.
In an area, sometimes it’s hard to find the line between research and development. In the area of nuclear research, for instance, there is discussion of an entirely different technology for building very small nuclear plants that use a pebble-type technology, as opposed to the rods that – you’re familiar with this – there’s a discussion about building a model facility to see if that technology actually works. I actually consider that research. It would be owned by the government; perhaps we’d hire companies to build it; and we’d see if it works. And if so, then that technology could be licensed to any number of companies, again, foreign or domestic, to build facilities here and around the world.
That, again, is if we don’t think that there is going to be sufficient interest in that part of industry to carry out research which has a very high-risk of failure and requires a great deal of resources.
It’s election season in the US, and time to demand better from our representatives. Now is the time to be planning your 2012 Campaign for Clean Energy.
