Category: History

Posted on

Beverly Rubik an Enquiring Mind Healing the Placebo Effect

Scientists (enquiring minds) must continually be motivated by the “mother” of all questions: What facets of nature remain undiscovered because what we consider (think) to be theoretical certainties prevent the posing of new challenging questions?

Beverly Rubik IE26 1999

“Healing the Placebo Effect” gbgoble2013

Our conception of the placebo effect needs healing, no one presently understands it.  Energy healing may also be misunderstood. On the one hand, actual healing caused by the placebo effect is dismissed; something to be accounted for or avoided in research studies. On the other hand, energy healings’ positive therapeutic results have been dismissed as the result of known psychological mechanisms.

Are the placebo effect and energy healing a con job?

Wiki quote

Energy medicine, energy therapy, or energy healing, a branch of complementary and alternative medicine, holds the belief that a healer can channel healing energy into the person seeking help by different methods: hands-on, hands-off, and distant (or absent) where the patient and healer are in different locations. There are various schools of energy healing. It is known as bio-field energy healing, spiritual healing, contact healing, distant healing, therapeutic touch, Reiki or Qigong. Spiritual healing is largely non-denominational: practitioners do not see traditional religious faith as a prerequisite for effecting a cure. Faith healing, by contrast, takes place within a religious context.

Early reviews of the scientific literature on energy healing were equivocal and recommended further research, but more recent reviews have concluded that there is no evidence supporting clinical efficacy. The theoretical basis of healing has been criticised, research and reviews supportive of energy medicine have been criticised for containing methodological flaws and selection bias and…

…”positive therapeutic results have been dismissed as”

(op.ed. – “…yet positive therapeutic results may effectively”)

…”the result of known psychological mechanisms.”

(op.ed. –  “… be caused by unknown physiological (mind/body) mechanisms.”)

Edzard Ernst, lately Professor of Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the University of Exeter, has warned that… “healing continues to be promoted despite the absence of biological plausibility or convincing clinical evidence … that these methods work therapeutically and plenty to demonstrate that they do not.” Some claims of those purveying “energy medicine” devices are known to be fraudulent and their marketing practices have drawn law-enforcement action in the U.S.

-end wiki quote

The real ‘con job’ is promoting that we cannot choose…

Between

  • Being conned (or conning oneself) into a state of unhappiness and an existence of life void of respect and trust. i.e. despair (disease)

 

And

  • Knowing that you can “con” yourself (and hopefully others) into a state of happiness and an existence of life full of, appreciation, inspiration, and most of all, respect and trust. i.e. hope. (wellness)

 

Continually be motivated by the “mother” of all questions…
Perhaps we should meditate on understanding and utilizing the placebo effect?

 

US National Intitutes of Health – National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)

“Maybe It’s All Placebo?” by Director – Josephine P. Briggs, M.D.

A recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) showed a positive outcome for tai chi in the management of the troubling symptoms of fibromyalgia—a condition with which many patients struggle and for which conventional medicine has little to offer. That is why this study is so provocative—can a CAM modality really affect this condition?

In the meantime, we are also interested in understanding and exploring the many components of the placebo effect: what role does expectation play? How important is the patient-provider interaction in health? What is the mind-body connection and how can it be harnessed to promote health and well being?

As a physician and a researcher, I find these issues intriguing and am excited for us to further explore these important research questions.

 

Posted to US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health

“Against the Placebo Effect: A Personal Point of View” Mar 5 2013

William E Stirton Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, University of Michigan-Dearborn

Abstract

The author reviews 10 of his favorite studies which are said to be about the “placebo effect,” but which, instead, show the significance of meaning in a medical context. “Placebos,” he argues, are inert substances which can’t do anything. Yet it’s clear that after the administration of such drugs, things do happen.

The one (and maybe only) clear thing here is that whatever happens is not due to the placebo (that is what “inert” means). But placebos can be of various colors and forms which can convey compelling meaning to patients. They often represent medical treatment in compelling ways; they can be metonymic representations of the entire medical experience.

(a metonym is a representation where a part of something comes to represent it all, as in “counting noses,” where the nose represents the whole person, or a “White House statement” where the White House represents the Executive Branch of the US Government; here, the pill represents the whole medical experience)

More precisely, they can be metonymic simulacra (a simulacrum is a sort of artificial object, like a statue rather than a man, or a placebo rather than an aspirin). Such objects are well known for their powerful abilities to contain and convey meaning; for example, a European cathedral ordinarily is constructed of thousands of metonymic simulacra, from the rose window to the altar.

In this context, a placebo can repeatedly remind the patient of the medical encounter, its shadings and comforts. Placebos can convey the physicians innermost feelings about medication and treatment; and the clinician can by her simple presence enhance the effectiveness of a medical procedure (and a clinician is hardly a placebo, hardly inert).

Inert placebos can help us see the human dimensions of medical treatment; but calling these things “placebo effects” dramatically distorts our understanding of such treatments, by focusing on the inert, and avoiding the meaningful. Think “meaning response,” not “placebo effect.” Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

“Energy Medicine and the Unifying Concept of Information”  Beverly Rubik

 

Abstract

Alternative medicine remains alternative because it poses serious challenges to the mainstream biomedical paradigm of mechanical reductionism and because it requires a new framework. This paper explores some of the hypotheses and challenges of energy medicine including healer interventions, electromagnetic therapies, and homeopathy. Together with new findings from the bioelectromagnetic field, they spell out the rudiments of a new paradigm for biology and medicine based on information.

 

Information embraces the complex network of relations in the matter and energy transactions of living systems. It offers a unified view of energy medicine modalities as well as a fresh perspective for biology and medicine and new questions for further research.

 

 >addendum 3/31/13

 

Friends sent this Gorilla Reunion video after reading the article, and then called to converse.

  • I was impressed with their reasoning and added this to the article as an experiment for us all.
  • They said viewing the video can be healing. That one experiences the high level of communication (information exchange) that is taking place. (the whole family is quickly comfortable with this human)
  • That it helps to heal despair and fear, by deeply affecting the brain through an element which is believed to be partly responsible for the placebo effect and energy healing…
  • …the functioning of mirror neurons in the brain.
  • I was asked to watch the video with an observant, absorbing, and open mind: multiple times, for a couple of days, and watch for changes in my level of well-being.
  • This is a subjective experiment, of course, and is valuable as such in its’ own right.  Checking it out…

 

Research Mirror Neurons at National Institutes of Health

 

– < USE ENERGY HEALING < COLD FUSION NOW > HEALING ENERGY USE > –
Posted on

Did the 2004 US DoE review reject cold fusion?

No.

“Cold fusion,” as reviewed in 2004, was primarily the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, with palladium deuteride, through electrolytic or gas loading.

The review panel was evenly split on the issue of anomalous heat, half considering the evidence for a heat anomaly “compelling.”

The only direct evidence that the FP Heat Effect is “nuclear” is the production of helium correlated with heat, first reported by Miles in 1991, and confirmed by other groups later. There are other reported nuclear effects, such as tritium, but none of these have been correlated with heat, so far, and none are at levels  allowing them to be a major part of the reaction producing measurable heat.

On the question of whether or not the FPHE was nuclear, only one reviewer considered nuclear evidence “convincing.” About a third considered it “somewhat convincing.”

It is easy, reading the review and the related documents carefully, to understand the conclusions. The review contained this:

Results reported in the review document purported to show that  4He was detected in five out of  sixteen cases where electrolytic cells were reported to be producing excess heat.The detected 4He was typically very close to, but reportedly above background levels. This evidence was taken as convincing or somewhat convincing by some reviewers; for others the lack of consistency was an indication that the overall hypothesis was not justified. Contamination of apparatus or samples by air containing 4He was cited as one possible cause for false positive results in some measurements.

Given that summary, were it accurate on fact, the conclusion of “unconvincing” was rational and sound. Notice the “lack of consistency” in five out of sixteen.

However, there were two errors. The minor error was that 5/16 is from the  Case Appendix, which is about gas-loaded palladium on a carbon catalyst base, not “electrolytic cells.”

The major error is the claim that these cells were “producing excess heat.” However, in that Appendix, heat data was given for only one cell. The Case Appendix was seriously defective, missing crucial information. If provided, it would have shown a stunning correlation between heat and helium.

However, the panel had other heat/helium evidence before it. Miles was referenced. However, the reviewers had 130 papers to consider in a short time.

Only one reviewer showed clear signs of having read Miles, the one convinced as to “nuclear.” Miles is, stand-alone, conclusive, needing only confirmation. Because Miles, and other reports as being confirmations of Miles, were missed, the crucial nuclear evidence was missed.

Instead, as is with cold fusion, a mass of data was presented on “other nuclear evidence,” all of which is relatively weak and circumstantial. The theory-du-jour was presented, quite where the panel lost interest.

Cold fusion requires a paradigm shift, and scientists do not accept paradigm shifts unless presented with conclusive evidence that they are required.

The original discovery was of a heat anomaly. The panel, for the first time, showed that there was substantial reason to consider the heat real, a major advance over the 1989 review.

Because of the theoretical implications, and because of the native unreliability of the heat effect, there is a substantial segment of the scientific community that will continue to think “there must be some mistake” with the heat evidence, until there is proof (and heat/helium is proof).  The opportunity to consider the only convincing nuclear evidence was missed, because of how the information was presented.

Had the review paper gone through peer review, the omissions would have been noticed. Had the DoE review included a substantial back-and-forth, the omissions would also have been noticed.

The 2004 DoE review demonstrates what has been missing in the consideration of cold fusion, a careful look at heat/helium.

Storms covers the issue of heat/helium in his Naturwissenschaften “Review of cold fusion (2010).”

There is lengthier coverage of the DoE review and critique of heat/helium at

Single incredible experiment

and that post links to examination of the attempted rebuttals of Miles by Jones and Shanahan.

As a community, we will prepare to return to the Department of Energy with a focused and thoroughly vetted presentation. There are those who claim DoE prejudice, and behind-the-scenes torpedoing of all cold fusion research proposals.

However, we have not openly tested this, we have only rumor and circumstantial evidence.

It is time that we listen to the skeptics, who have been saying that we haven’t convinced them. They are right, because  we failed to communicate what was necessary.

We will remedy this, and, should heat/helium still be considered inconclusive, we will resolve the issues, with a more careful and precise investigation designed to address all rational criticism. This research is precisely in line with what both DoE reviews recommended. We will do what it takes.

From 2004:

The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV.

(We do not know that the FPHE  is the result of a D-D fusion reaction. The heat/helium ratio indicates, but does not prove, that the effect releases helium with heat at the level expected from D-D fusion, but other processes could do this. The premature assumption of d-d fusion has afflicted cold fusion from the beginning.)

People get ready, there’s a train a-coming.

Related

Miles, M., et al. Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathode J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993. 346: p. 99.

Miles, M., et al. Thermal Behavior of Polarized Pd/D Electrodes Prepared by Co-deposition. in The 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2002. Beijing, China: Tsinghua University: Tsinghua Univ. Press.

Miles, M. Correlation Of Excess Enthalpy And Helium-4 Production: A Review. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org.

 

Posted on

2013 History of Cold Fusion Calendar

Which Nobel laureates gave speeches in support of cold fusion?

Are any federal agencies involved in cold fusion research?

Who did reproduce the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE) early on, and just where in the world were positive results generated?

When you need a couple of quick facts showing cold fusion is not only real, but nearing commercial potential, the 2013 History of Cold Fusion Calendar can be your source for evidence!

It’s chocked full of historical facts that answer questions like ‘what physicist and famous science fiction author called “ignoring cold fusion one of the greatest scandals in scientific history”?’.

The 12-month wall hanging objet d’art et l’utilité used as a base the timeline published in Eugene Mallove‘s March/April 1999 Infinite Energy Magazine issue #24 commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the announcement of Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons‘ discovery of fusion-sized energy from water in a test-tube.

The IE published timeline itself was an update on previously published timelines in F. David Peat‘s Cold Fusion: The Making of A Scientific Controversy and Hal Fox‘s Cold Fusion Impact in the Enhanced Energy Age. The timeline in Tadahiko Mizuno‘s Nuclear Transmutations The Reality of Cold Fusion was also noted. Other sources were Edmund Storms‘ The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and early Infinite Energy issues.

The discovery of ultra-clean energy-dense power from the hydrogen in water languished amid mainstream hostility towards the experimental facts. While many of the smart, capable people who tried the experiment in 1989 saw nothing, there were plenty of positive results, and this calendar highlights those achievements. This calendar does not trace the many theoretical models that scientists are still formulating, but focuses on the early experimental data that showed anomalous effects.

It is not a complete “History” per se. All dates in previously published timelines were not used. Many events have exact dates, but too many events on one day forced some dates to be “thereabouts”. In future editions, we would like to rotate through all names and events with a different theme each year.

Who around the world continues to probe this Rumpelstiltskin-reaction, now called low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), lattice-assisted nuclear reactions (LANR), the anomalous heat effect, or quantum fusion?

And what companies are attempting to commercialize an ultra-clean next-generation nuclear power?

The 2013 History of Cold Fusion Calendar can provide a few answers, as well as be a resource for those conversations that turn to repeating twenty-year-old manufactured myth as fact.

This calendar can be sent to schools, colleges and universities, chemistry, physics, and engineering departments, policy makers, investors, environmental groups, friends and family for education and awareness. Why even detractors could benefit!

Long-time cold fusioneers, LENRites, LANRists, Qua-Fus, and those who are just plain Anomalous will enjoy feasting upon the lavish photos of laboratory set-ups and cold fusion experimental apparatus. The early images from India and China are no less-then art, and portraits of researchers show the humanity behind the metal.

I hope the CMNS community will support this effort to educate and entertain. Log in your big days, keep track of what’s missing, to be collected into the spreadsheet of dates that will form the core data of a complete historical record which can be accessible through a super-cool digital 3D-holographic interactive timeline that has EVERYTHING!

I had never made a calendar before, let alone one that had science papers instead of holidays. I acted fast. (Who wants a calendar in March?) I am particularly grateful to Peter Gluck and Christy Frazier for kindly tolerating a quick last minute bid for dates and photos. Steve Featherstone generously donated his photos. A huge thank you to the scientists who graciously responded to my photo and date requests. I hope you are all happy with the result.

I look forward to your feedback. We have a whole year to put together the 2014 version, and it will be even better.

All proceeds will go to Cold Fusion Now and the New Energy Foundation to further clean energy advocacy and the direct financial support of cold fusion research.

Get a calendar mailed to your door HERE!

Posted on

Brian Josephson safeguards historic contribution of Martin Fleischmann

U.K. University of Cambridge Professor Dr. Brian Josephson, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1973 for the Josephson Effect, wrote the fine obituary published in The Guardian honoring Dr. Martin Fleischmann, co-discoverer of cold fusion who passed away earlier this year.

Focusing on Fleischmann’s life’s work, the essay was not a defense of cold fusion, though Josephson wrote, “However, progress seems to be occurring towards the application of cold fusion as a practical energy source. It may well transpire that, in the words of one cold fusion entrepreneur: “The market will decide.” (Including Josephson’s links).

Josephson then went to work dismantling some of the blundering misconceptions that reared up in the print landscape through the many unresearched and cliche obituaries scrawled by witless writers “walking backwards into the future”.

He responded to one of the more egregious pieces (and there were many) printed in Nature, the scientific journal with a long-standing policy of refusing to publish cold fusion research.

John Maddox, editor of Nature back in 1989, had decided within months that cold fusion was through.

“I think it will turn out, after two, three years more investigation, that this is just spurious and just unconnected with anything that you would call nuclear fusion. I think that broadly speaking it is dead and it will remain dead for a very long time” Maddox said in the 1994 BBC Horizon documentary Too Close To The Sun. [watch]

Fortunately, only subscribers of Nature were subjected to the current dreadful fiction by Fleischmann-obit author Philip Ball, and we are not privy to Professor Josephson‘s Letter to the Editor in reply due to copyright (unless you’ve got $16), but he has posted a narrative containing the major points of his response on his website which we reproduce below.

Ball’s obituary of Martin Fleischmann in Nature found wanting
by Brian Josephson [original here]

A letter published in Nature addressed itself to an obituary of Martin Fleischmann written by Philip Ball, the flavour of which can be judged from the following extracts:
“the blot that cold fusion left on Martin Fleischmann’s reputation is hard to expunge”

“cold fusion is now regarded as one of the most notorious cases of what chemist Irving Langmuir called pathological science; it was a lack of reproducibility that finally put paid to the cold fusion idea”

“once you have been proved right against the odds, it becomes harder to accept the possibility of error. To make a mistake or a premature claim, even to fall prey to self-deception, is a risk any scientist runs”

When I challenged Ball on this he replied naively that “those few that claimed success have never been able to demonstrate this sufficiently reliably and convincingly to persuade the majority. That is simply the situation as it stands”. Factually that may indeed be the case but the fact that the majority are not convinced hardly suffices to justify the dogmatic presumptions implicit in the extracts cited above.

In any event, a response was clearly called for and I was glad that Nature accepted the letter that I submitted to their Correspondence section. In that letter I noted first of all that

Ball’s obituary, in common with many others, ignored the large amount of experimental evidence contradicting the view that cold fusion is ‘pathological science’,

citing the library at www.lenr.org as providing a comprehensive listing of this research, including many downloadable papers. I also referred readers to my Guardian obituary.

I also noted that the situation at the time of the original announcement of cold fusion was confused because of errors in the nuclear measurements (this was not Pons and Fleischmann’s area of expertise), plus the difficulty others had with replication; however, problems with replication are not unusual in the context of materials science so this is not a strong objection and, further, in time

others were able to get the experiment to work and confirm both excess heat and nuclear products.

Ball included reference to ‘a Utah physicist who reported in Nature (see M.H. Salamon et al. Nature 344, 401–405; 1990) that he was unable to replicate the work’. Those who took the trouble to read this reference will note that the authors of that paper were much taken by the fact that there was a mismatch between the amount of excess heat claimed (which they did not measure) and the amount of radiation they measured. In case any readers were to draw the erroneous conclusion (which perhaps Ball hoped they would draw) that this refuted the possibility of nuclear reaction, I noted in my letter:

“experiment never excluded the possibility that the energy liberated might be taken up directly by the lattice”

I concluded by saying:

Had [this scenario] not happened, Fleischmann would have gained the credit due to him, rather than becoming a tragic figure in the manner of your correspondent’s account.

The above is provided as a service to those unable to access the complete obituary and comment in the journal itself.

Cold Fusion Now posted a series remembering Martin Fleischmann and turned one sorry obituary into art within ten minutes.

Posted on

“President Obama and Cold Fusion LENR” Is an October Surprise Immanent, Eminent, and Imminent? Part 2 U.S. Administration

“Address the Nation: LENR Power and Expansion into Space”

This is an adaptation of a speech given by President John F. Kennedy.

The original speech should be listened to before reading the adaptation. President Kennedy’s speech gives insight into the driving forces behind NASA and our continued space programs. That context is needed to understand the adaptation of President Kennedy’s famous speech.

“On the Nation’s Space Effort”, John F. Kennedy 12 September 1962. Address at Rice University in Houston, Texas (voice recording)

President Obama is the Chief Excecutive Officer of NASA.

President Obama is Commander in Chief of the Navy (research laboratories) and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

LENR/cold fusion power is a matter of national security for both NASA and the Armed Forces. Please study what NASA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Navy know about LENR/cold fusion power. That information is found in the following papers and videos and is essential for a good reading of my adaptation of Kennedy’s Address.

 Navy

“Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D2O System Volume 1: A Decade of Research at Navy Laboratories”  Technical Report 1862 – February 2002 (read)

“Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D2O System Volume 2: Simulation of the Electrochemical Cell (ICARUS) Calorimetry” Technical Report 1862 – February 2002 (read)

Defense Intelligence Agency

Defense Analysis Report – Technology Forecast:

“Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance” DIA-08-0911-003 13 November 2009

  • LENR could serve as a power source for batteries that could last for decades, providing power for electricity, sensors, military operations, and other applications in remote areas, including space. LENR could also have medical applications for disease treatment, pacemakers, or other equipment. Because nuclear fusion releases 10 million times more energy per unit mass than does liquid transportation fuel, the military potential of such high-energy-density power sources is enormous. And since the U.S. military is the largest user of liquid fuel for transportation, LENR power sources could produce the greatest transformation of the battlefield for U.S. forces since the transition from horsepower to gasoline power. (read)

 

NASA

Sept 22, 2011 LENR Brief @ GRC – J.M.Zawodny “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: Is there better way to do nuclear power?” (pdf)

Sept 22, 2011 LENR Brief @ GRC – Dennis M. Bushnell “NASA and GRC – LENR Workshop 2011” (pdf)

Recommended Follow Up (by NASA)

.

 “METHOD FOR PRODUCING HEAVY ELECTRONS” NASA Patent

United States Patent Application Publication No.: US 2011/0255645 Al Zawodny/NASA Pub. Date: Oct. 20, 2011 (pdf)

“Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook” Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist, Langley Research Center (read)

” Abundant Clean/Green Energy” by Joseph Zawodny. (video)

NASA Technology Gateway – LENR

“Welcome to the Technology Gateway. At Langley we have a long history of creating technologies that improve the way we live and the way we work. In the future we would like to enable those technologies to move from the laboratory into the marketplace and we’re going to do that through partnerships.”

 “NASA’s Method for a Clean Nuclear Energy For Your Power Operated Technology.” (Licensing available)

Noteworthy

The NASA – LENR device is on the U.S. marketplace through their Technology Gateway and that the E-Cat is making major design improvements while planning to enter the U.S. market on an accelerated timetable. (Cold Fusion Now – Hot Honeycomb)

The race to LENR power is real.

The following adaptation of the speech by President Kennedy is fiction.

Imagine President Obama giving it or a similar one as an October Surprise. The imminent surprise of cold fusion is which polititian, industry, or company will announce it first?

Oil Industry

Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 2012

“On the Precipice of a New Energy Source?” Go to Page 18  (read)

“Address the Nation: LENR Power and Expansion into Space” 

 

We live in a nation noted for knowledge, in a nation noted for progress, in a nation noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we are in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.

Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this nation’s own scientific manpower is leading the world, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our collective comprehension.

No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man¹s recorded history in a time span of but a half a century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.

Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now with America’s newest spacecraft leaving the solar system we literally reach out to the stars before midnight tonight.

This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the development of new knowledge promises high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.

So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.

If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. From the frontiers of science now comes to us a revolutionary source of energy, LENR power. Inexpensive, clean, and nearly unlimited LENR power developed from early cold fusion research. The world’s conversion to LENR power will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the worldwide conversion to LENR power.

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of LENR power. We mean to be a part of it–we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world will now look forward to LENR power.

Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world’s leading LENR powered nation.

With LENR power, we can now truly set sail on the new sea of space. All NASA missions unrealized can now be realized because of this inexpensive, clean, unlimited source of energy. LENR power and space are the new frontiers to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For LENR power, space science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether LENR power will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether unlimited LENR power and the new ocean of space will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of unlimited energy and permanent space habitation any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its population will deserve the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, convert to LENR power and expand habitation into space? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 93 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why, 43 years ago, fly the to the Moon?

We choose to convert to LENR power and enable permanent habitation of humanity in space. We choose to convert to LENR power and see humanity expand into space and do other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision to shift our efforts from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.

The conversion to LENR power and expansion into space will spur growth, our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universe and environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new tools and computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. All will reap the harvest of these gains.

However, I think we’re going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don’t think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. It will be done during or past the term of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of the next two decades.

Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, “Because it is there.”

Well, the unlimited, clean energy of LENR power and the frontiers of space are there, and we’re going to answer the call, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God’s blessing on the most challenging and daring and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.

Thank you

“Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs” Page 4

 

President John F. Kennedy May 25th 1961. Delivered in person before a joint session of Congress announcing aspirations for the Apollo Program (read)

“I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals…

     No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space…

     Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that under the leadership of the Space Committees of the Congress, and the Appropriating Committees, that you will consider the matter carefully…

     It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you have lived through the last four years and have seen the significance of space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space…

     I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months…

     This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities…

     It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel…

     New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further–unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space…

In conclusion, let me emphasize one point: that we are determined, as a nation in 1961 that freedom shall survive and succeed–and whatever the peril and set-backs, we have some very large advantages.

     The first is the simple fact that we are on the side of liberty–and since the beginning of history, and particularly since the end of the Second World War, liberty has been winning out all over the globe.

     A second real asset is that we are not alone. We have friends and allies all over the world who share our devotion to freedom.

–serious conversations do not require a pale unanimity–they are rather the instruments of trust and understanding over a long road.

     A third asset is our desire for peace. –that we seek no conquests, no satellites, no riches–that we seek only the day when “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

     Finally, our greatest asset in this struggle is the American people–their willingness to pay the price for these programs–to understand and accept a long struggle–to share their resources with other less fortunate people–to meet the tax levels and close the tax loopholes I have requested–to exercise self-restraint instead of pushing up wages or prices, or over-producing certain crops, or spreading military secrets, or urging unessential expenditures or improper monopolies or harmful work stoppages–to serve in the Peace Corps or the Armed Services or the Federal Civil Service or the Congress–to strive for excellence in their schools, in their cities and in their physical fitness and that of their children–to take part in Civil Defense–to pay higher postal rates, and higher payroll taxes and higher teachers’ salaries, in order to strengthen our society–to show friendship to students and visitors from other lands who visit us and go back in many cases to be the future leaders, with an image of America–and I want that image, and I know you do, to be affirmative and positive–and, finally, to practice democracy at home, in all States, with all races, to respect each other and to protect the Constitutional rights of all citizens.”

Posted on

Honoring Martin Fleischmann

Obituaries
The Telegraph
New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Salt Lake Tribune
Washington Post
Philadelphia Inquirer reprint Peter Svensson Associated Press

Too many obituaries like these continue the myth:
that cold fusion is a phenomenon imagined in the minds of lesser scientists.

(A shriekingly loud wailing erupts) Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrgghgghhhhh!

O my peoples! Let us correct this – We got your back Martin!

Please take a moment to write to your local newspaper, your national newspaper or news magazine, and tell them that cold fusion is real, and has been replicated hundreds of times in labs around the world.

Tell them Navy researchers have confirmed the effect twenty years ago, NASA is testing technology, and commercial products from independent companies are in development.

Tell them to look at the interviews with scientists on coldfusionnow.org.

You could engage in no greater honor for Martin Fleischmann, as well as the collection of scientists who continued to work on the Fleischmann-Pons Effect despite the hostility of the conventionally-thinking minds and myths like this headline above.

Of course, the greatest tribute to Martin Fleischmann remains the body of work these scientists produced in spite of the offensive conditions.

The “fax” that started it all:
M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, M. Hawkins, Electrochemically Induced Nuclear Fusion of Deuterium J. Electroanalytical Chem., vol. 261, pp 301-308, and erratum, vol. 263, p 187 (1989). [.pdf].

A discovery that wrote the names of Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, and Marvin Hawkins in the pages of history forever, with the glory, and the sacrifice.

Hal Fox‘s
Fusion Facts
Volume 1 Number 7
January 1990 [.pdf]

Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons named
Fusion Scientists of the Year 1989

New Energy Times Fusion Facts Archive is here.

Additional archives sorted by author from New Energy Times here.

ART

Our tribute, from the community of new energy supporters, continues to create expressions of love and peace for better world, which we firmly believe, is possible.

Love 2 Martin Fleischmann by Ra Superstar

MUSIC
Patty and Barry Simon performed a beautiful set of music, embellished in the video with Dr. Fleischmann’s fellow scientists words.

Writing
Martin Fleischmann leaves brilliant legacy of courage in pursuit of truth by Ruby Carat
The Deep Reach of Martin Fleischmann by Ruby Carat
A Story of Cold Fusion Power: Barack Obama and the New Green Energy New Fiction by Joe Shea

And ….?