Dr. Sally Goerner Discusses Chaos, Complexity & Social Transition — Interview

This is an interview I recently conducted w/ general systems theorist Dr. Sally J. Goerner. While not focusing on Cold Fusion-LENR per se, it does focus on how a society might transition (aka self-organize) during a time of tumultuous change. It seems to me that CF-LENR, as well as the hope & uncertainty that accompanies it, is undoubtedly part of this complex “bifurcation point” in planetary history. I think the success of CF-LENR depends as much on humanity discovering innovative and/or “emergent” social arrangements, aka “cooperative modes” — and the two technologies will mutually reinforce one another through feedback. The dialogue is rather long, so I have provided an outline below. Thanks for taking an interest:

0.min-10.min: Dr. Goerner’s eclectic background; general systems theory; studying under Ralph Abraham; patterns & strange attractors; physical vs. spiritual; order-producing universe; energy network science vs. chaos theory; popular misconceptions surrounding chaos theory; lost meaning & lost science

10.min-20.min: Energy flow networks; self-organization vs. classical mechanization; basic elements of chaos theory; complementarity & chaos; boiling water & hydrodynamic self-organization; autopoetic cycles; bifurcation points

20.min-30.min: Orders & David Bohm; entropy as a subtle form of order; quantum chaos; fractal orders; particles as localized energy flow; linear vs. non-linear systems; importance of coupling; determinism

30.min-40.min: Reconceptualizing evolution; information & self-organization produce evolution; adapting to information & crises; co-evolution & stages of consciousness; fractal hierarchy & panarchy; distributed power & learning to listen; autopoetic genesis of DNA; Freeman Dyson’s energy accident

40.min-50.min: Holographic DNA; Stephen Jay Gould; aperiodic evolutionary jumps; Darwinism & elite politics; fallacy of Social-Darwinism; Dawkins & free-market society; How the Leopard Changed Its Spots; development of the prefrontal cortex; reforming economics & finance; economics as a complex metabolism; appealing to power-brokers; bio-mimicry & development; needs hierarchies & dysfunction

50.min-60.min: Necessary conditions for self-organization; corruption; focus on what energizes you; thinking outside the box; reading & synthesizing; the politics of resignation; transition from medieval worldview to modern age; distortion of society’s root metaphor; After the Clockwork Universe

60.min-69.min: Bifurcations & social change; Jean Gebser & integral society; solutions & education; local order & global order; restoring integrity; reciprocity & the science of cooperation; time-banking; beyond charity; banking reform; international development of networks vs. GDP growth; constraining metrics & NGOs

Also see:

Dr. Edmund Storms Explains LENR Theory — Interview

Dr. Brian Ahern Explains Non-Linear LENR — Interview

‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological) by Henry H. Bauer

The term pathological science was first coined by chemist and Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir during a speech in 1953 when he described scientific investigations done on the premise of “wishful thinking”.

From a transcript of Langmuir’s almost-lost talk:

These are cases where there is no dishonesty involved but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions.

Langmuir’s criteria, or ‘symptons‘, for pathological science are:

1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
3. Claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.

This is important to the field of condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS) as cold fusion has been labeled “pathological science” and pushed outside of mainstream research. The result has been a lack of funding, the absence of a coordinated research plan, a decreased intellectual pool working to solve the problem, and the continued use of hydrocarbons and dirty nuclear power with its associated horrors.

Author Jed Rothwell wrote on Wikipedia in 2006 dispatching each of Langmuir’s criteria in regards to cold fusion science by providing a case-by-case rebuttal. Wikipedia has campaigned hard to remove positive information on the topic, and that article is now deleted, but you can read it here archived on Ludwik Kowalski‘s page.

Virginia Tech Professor of Chemistry Henry H. Bauer looked at the criteria itself.

In his essay ‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological) published in HYLE–International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, he writes that “they do not provide useful criteria for distinguishing bad science from good science (Bauer 1984, pp. 145-46; Physics Today, 1990 a,b)” and that they “are no more valid than the many other suggestions as to how to distinguish good science from pseudo-science (Bauer 1984, chapter 8; Laudan 1983)” noting that “many praised pieces of research satisfy one or more of Langmuir’s criteria for pathology.”

For the case of cold fusion, Bauer writes:

The most recent major outcry over ‘pathological science’ was occasioned by ‘cold fusion’. A number of books about this episode have appeared, all of them quite strongly pro- or con-. This author, who himself worked in electrochemistry from the early 1950s to the late 1970s, has discussed the merits and defects of these books in several reviews (Bauer 1991; 1992b, c; 1995).

In 1989, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced at a press conference at the University of Utah that they had brought about nuclear fusion at room temperature in an electrochemical cell: they had measured heat production too great to explain by other than nuclear processes.

Many physicists dismissed the claims as impossible from the outset, yet confirmations were being announced from all over the world. Within months, however, many of these were withdrawn; other laboratories reported failures to replicate the effect; and a committee empaneled by the US Department of Energy concluded that there was nothing worth pursuing in these claims. Within a year or two, those working on cold fusion had become separated from mainstream scientific communities, holding separate conferences and often publishing in other than mainstream publications. However, at the present time, a dozen years after the initial announcement, a considerable number of properly qualified people continue to believe the chief claim, that nuclear reactions can be achieved at ambient temperatures under electrochemical conditions (Beaudette 2000).

What have Fleischmann and Pons been accused of that was ‘pathological’?

They had announced their discovery at a news conference and not in peer-reviewed publication. They had failed to reveal all details of their procedures. The heat effect remained elusive: no one could set up the experiment and guarantee that excess heat would be observed, sometimes it was and sometimes not. They had performed incompetent measurements of nuclear products and then fudged the results. They had failed to understand that nuclear reactions would inevitably release radiation, and that the level of radiation corresponding to the heat claimed to have been generated would have been lethal. Nuclear theory in any case showed that fusion could not occur under such mild conditions, it required higher temperatures and pressures to many orders of magnitudes, as in the interior of stars.

But of all those criticisms, only the one about fudging nuclear measurements can be sustained, and that does not bear on the issue of whether or not cold fusion is a real phenomenon.

Announcing results first at news conferences has become standard practice in hot fields, for example molecular biology and genetic engineering. It was routine during the initial years of excitement about high-temperature superconductors. Also in that field, some workers quite deliberately put misleading information into their publications, correcting them at the last moment only, in order to preserve secrecy (Felt & Nowotny 1992; Roy 1989).

Lack of replicability does not mean that a phenomenon is necessarily spurious. Semiconductors did not become transistors and microchips in the 1930s because the presence of then-unsuspected, then-undetectably-small amounts of impurities made the phenomena irreproducible, elusive. Certain effects of electromagnetic fields on living systems remained difficult to reproduce for a century or more (Bauer 2001a, pp. 125, 132-33). Perhaps only electrochemists would recognize how vast is the number of experimental variables that might affect reproducibility in cold-fusion systems: almost innumerable variations in the physical characteristics of the electrodes and in the electrical regimen as well as all sorts of possible contaminants, conceivably active at levels that might be virtually impossible to detect by other means than their interference with the looked-for effect.

As to theoretical possibility, “Although cold fusion was, in terms of ‘ordinary’ physics, absurd, it was not obviously so; it contravened no fundamental laws of nature” (Lindley 1990, p. 376). Physics Nobelist Julian Schwinger was among those who proposed explanations for how cold fusion might occur. It may be well to recall in this connection that lasers and masers were also regarded as impossible before their discovery, and indeed by some eminent people even after they had been demonstrated (Townes 1999).

Once again, as with N-rays and polywater, it turns out that nothing occurred that could rightly be called pathological. The leading cold-fusion researchers went at their work just as they had at the other research that had established their good reputation, in Fleischmann’s case sufficiently distinguished as to warrant a Fellowship of the Royal Society. Fleischmann had always been known as an adventurous thinker, the sort of person – like the astrophysicist Thomas Gold (1999) – whose suggestions are always worth attending to even when they do not work out. His competence was beyond question, and it was not at all uncharacteristic for him to follow apparently far-out hunches. Sometimes they had paid off for him. Moreover, he had ample grounds from earlier work to look for unusual phenomena when electrolyzing heavy water at palladium electrodes, and he had quite rational grounds for speculating that nuclear reactions might proceed in the solid state under quite different conditions than in plasmas (Beaudette 2000, chap. 3).

The single criticism that is not to be gainsaid concerns how Fleischmann and Pons altered the reported results from initial attempts to measure radiation from their cells. But there is more to be noted here about such apparent instances of scientific misconduct. Fleischmann and Pons were tempted into these actions because they had tried to make measurements without properly learning all the ins and outs of the technique: they thought they could measure radiation by just taking a radiation meter and placing it near their cell. In point of fact, a great deal needs to be known about circumstances that can affect the functioning of such instruments (temperature, for example) and about how to eliminate background signals, as well as about how to interpret the measurements. In this, Fleischmann and Pons were falling into the same trap as many of their critics who, without experience of electrochemistry, thought they could connect together some cells and batteries and palladium electrodes and test within days or weeks what the experienced electrochemists had struggled for several years to bring about.

The transfer of expertise across disciplinary boundaries affords great challenges, and this instance illustrates that a superficial view might label as misconduct what is basically a natural result of failing to recognize how intricately specialized are the approaches of every sort of research. Much of the fuss about cold fusion is understandable as an argument between electrochemists and physicists as to whether empirical data from electrochemical experiments is to be more believed or less believed than apparently opposing nuclear theory (Beaudette 2000). To electrochemists it may seem perverse, possibly even scientific misconduct, to rule out of the realm of possibility competently obtained results because some theory in physics pronounces them impossible. To nuclear physicists, it may seem incompetence verging on scientific misconduct for electrochemists to invoke nuclear explanations just because they cannot understand where the heat in their experiments comes from.

As in the case of N-rays, one can plausibly level charges of scientific misconduct against those who denounced the cold-fusion studies. A journalist baselessly charged a graduate student with falsifying evidence of the production of tritium and this charge was published in Nature. The legitimacy of work by a distinguished Professor at Texas A & M University was questioned in two separate, long-drawn-out investigations that ultimately found him innocent of any wrongdoing. One participant in the cold-fusion controversy suggested that critics were guilty of “pathological skepticism” (Accountability in Research 2000).” —Henry H. Bauer ‘Pathological Science’ is not Scientific Misconduct (nor is it pathological)

Read The Pseudoscientists of the APS by Eugene Mallove and Jed Rothwell and decide for yourself if the shoe fits the “pathological skeptics”.

Conventionally-minded men like John R. Huizenga, the co-chair of the Energy Research Advisory Board who “investigated” the phenomenon in 1989 but failed to include the positive results made by Navy scientists in the final report, and American Physical Society spokesman Robert Park who lobbied vociferously against any mention of the research in mainstream scientific and political circles, both routinely used the vocabulary “pathological science” among other words, to describe the very real and active research. Applying the term to cold fusion was an early effort to discredit experimental data that could not be explained within the prevalent theoretical models.

“But the mainstream is always antagonistic to highly novel discoveries or suggestions, even when they become acceptable later: any suggestion that paradigms need to be changed is routinely resisted (Barber 1961), sometimes by effectively ignoring the claims (Stent 1972)”, writes Bauer.

From Henry H. Bauer Ethics in Science
From Henry H. Bauer Ethics in Science
“The most striking potential discoveries bring about revolutionary paradigm shifts.”

“The accepted rules and procedures for doing normal science are not adequate to bring about potentially revolutionary science: as is well known, hard cases make bad laws.”

Bauer does not endorse the work of Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. He does make the case that cold fusion is not deserving of the moniker “pathological science” and that the Langmuir’s criteria are themselves suspect. Based on the historical record of discovery, he reminds us that is normal for conventional minds to resist change.

The only difference now is that we are at the end-run of a several thousand-year-old expansion; over 7 billion people cover the planet, all needing water, food, and energy. Ecological systems are strained, economic relationships are broken, and energy resources are becoming difficult to access, expensive to process, and dangerous and to use. We have a solution for a clean energy world waiting to be developed; to wait for history to swing around is no longer an option.

“Pathological science” is a distraction we can tolerate no more.

Cold Fusion Now!

Related Links

Ethics in Science by Professor Henry H. Bauer

bumper stickers

Do you have a coldfusionnow.org bumper sticker on your car?

I do. And I believe that having bumper stickers on your car which refer to something you believe in helps you be a more conscientious driver, not necessarily a better driver, but a more conscientious driver, aware that you and thus your cause is making a good impression, (or a bad impression), dependent on how your driving is.  The world sometimes seems a little more rude, less aware these days, all those drivers on their cell phones.  A few cheerful bumper stickers, however, can brighten someone’s day.

My Cold Fusion Now sticker reads, “This isn’t the nuclear power your mother told you about.  www.coldfusionnow.org”.

With a second bumper sticker, one can start of with a little dialectic, play the two off each other, make the driver behind wonder what, say, your favorite political candidates or gun rights, or organic collectives have to do with cold fusion. Cold Fusion Now and Trout Unlimited would be a good combination. Think of it, with cold fusion we would need fewer hydro-electric dams: salmon runs would be restored, hot damn!

There are other strategies, one can work with multiple different bumper stickers either on the same theme or different ones.  Emphasize different nuances of a topic, or just make them wonder.  There are also the “fish wars” of the Jesus fish, the Darwin fish and so on.  “My child is an honor’s student,” may be of little importance except to the parents and the child, but without that bumper sticker we wouldn’t get the ones saying “my Jack Russell Terrier is smarter than your honor’ student.”  It is a little rude, and _probably_ not true, but it is legitimate commentary towards the bragging of the parents of the honor’s student.

Bumper stickers are best when they subtly tweak the nose of society.  Vulgar bumper stickers should be avoided, but fortunately the nanny-state has not gotten to legislating them yet, unlike trans-fats, sugary drinks and cigarettes.  In this small manner of free expression, individuals get to decide, for better or worse, what goes.

The ones that I like the most right now are the stickers representing the members of the family, as zombies.

And if you have more than five bumper stickers (not counting repeats of different kinds on the same themes), and an old car, then the question arises whether the bumper stickers are bumper stickers, or whether they are rust bandages. If you have an old rusted car, they transform into a variant of the handyman’s secret weapon, duct tape.

Bumper stickers can bring a smile to a stranger’s face, let them realize that there is something new out there, even if it is very old (a friend has a bumper sticker for his church, 2000 years of Orthodox Christianity).  A good bumper sticker is new at least in its form (I bet you didn’t know Orthodox Christians had bumper stickers).

And it can nudge the viewer a little into a new direction, possibly even spurring them to check out something new and integrating it into their life.  We need more people to think good thoughts about cold fusion, even if it is just to know we are out here and working towards a better future.

And who knows, maybe our angel of cold fusion (if she is not too busy already), will have some cold fusion stickers by Christmas, for all the boys and girls.

“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.


“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)



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)



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)


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.”

Health care and cold fusion

I would like to pose a question. Will the implementation of Obamacare have a positive effect for the development of cold fusion, a negative effect, or a negligible effect?

I have been reading the Daedalus issue on ‘the alternative energy future, vol 1,’ (no mention of cold fusion so far:-(   ), and one thing that it goes into is that we do not pay the true cost of an fossil fuels economy.  It divides costs into two categories, private costs and external costs.  Private costs are the costs to fill up the car, or to heat or, especially now, air condition our homes.  External costs are the costs to the standard of living and to the economy primarily from pollution, or other ecological effects (I would include bat kills from windmills).  The intermittent nature of wind and solar also is effectively an external cost, making those options less economical.

True costs are basically private (or overt) costs plus external (or implicit) costs.  The Daedalus issue says that in order for alternative energy to be more competitive, we need to assess the costs more fairly.  That is the case for renewables, and it is also the case for cold fusion.  Cold fusion is further away than renewables, but a better understanding of the costs of a fossil fuel economy but also of renewables, will make a better case for cold fusion.  Pollution is a cost, but so far its effects have been externalized, charged to individual suffering from ailments instead of being included in the calculation.

If the government takes an active hand in healthcare, then all of a sudden the external costs from pollution suddenly become a great concern.  Health care costs are growing, but one way a government can limit its expenditures in this area is by tackling sources of pollution.  This is, from my limited understanding, some of the thinking over in Europe.  Pollution becomes very much a public concern through healthcare.  Healthcare could add a whole new dynamic to the energy equation, making expenses reflect true costs.

But I am not sure whether that will be how Obamacare will work.  Will there be that kind of overt need for the government to limit costs, or does the individual mandate obscure the issue.  Will that dynamic occur, or for that dynamic is a single payer system necessary?  Therefore, I ask myself will Obamacare have a positive, a negative or a negligible effect on cold fusion?

But the reason why I bring it up, is to show how something as different as healthcare might cause a domino to fall, starting a chain reaction which will lead to greater attention to cold fusion.  Ultimately, everything in the world is related, its just a matter of how we can best make the connections.



A New Era 

With popular cold fusion – LENR/LENT science we are on the verge of an epic technological advancement. Always there are concurrent personal, social, economic, spiritual, and philosophical advancements, our evolution as a species.

Our strong survival instinct is now evolving to include each of each other, and all life on the planet, as a whole.

Sociobiology is the instinctual relationship of a species with both it’s environment and with members of it’s own species. It is theorized that humanity evolved (and is evolving) along lines of empathy and compassion as the strength of cultures that propagate successfully, our own survival of the fittest. Instinct in a species evolves as the species does.

As humanity’s instincts evolve we gain further insight. We observe interactions amongst ourselves, our universe, and its many components. We gain deeper understanding of cause and effect, it’s benefits and detriments both within and around us. Our sociobiology then evolves.

Back in the far distant past our instinctual fear of fire warned us away, we ran like all other creatures. Over time we cautiously captured embers when fearful raging fires had passed. We learned to utilize and then create fire. This was an epic technological advancement. Our instinct had changed and we entered the Fire Era, a major step in our evolution.

With technological advancements we then harnessed fire for metallurgy, motion, work, and the generation of electricity. As coal, liquid, gaseous, and radioactive fuels delivered more electricity, work, and motion, modern civilization experienced a surge in personal, social, economic, spiritual, and philosophical advancements. Humanity has evolved quite a bit since the dawning of the Fire Era. Concepts of the right to well-being have grown. Humanity is slowly becoming more humane.

We are now entering the Transmutation Era. We will have unlimited, nearly free, easily available, dense, and non-polluting energy from the transmutation of elements. With excitation, the harmonic convergence of atomic particles within the lattice ensures the cold fusion LENR/LENT nuclear active phenomenon. This is an epic technological advancement; which is sure to further our evolution as a species.

A Theory of Evolution through Cold Fusion

Our strong survival instinct is evolving to encompass each of each other, and all life on the planet, as a whole. In the past century our understanding of the biosphere and the importance of environmental stewardship has grown exponentially. Concepts of nonviolence and peace have progressed. Life’s collective right to well-being is better understood. Cold fusion/LENR/LENT technology will empower this change in our species; we will evolve to be harmonic with both our biosphere and our neighbors.

As humanity moves into space we will consider the guaranteed right to sustenance and nutriment; with food, air, water, lodging, and health care ensured for any citizen who migrates to Mars or other space colonies. These concepts will then gain hold on Earth.

Our concept of what constitutes “profit” will also evolve. Humanity will have a galactic mentality with goals beyond the monetary based “profit motive”. Economic models will evolve to reflect this. Sustainable economic generosity created through the continuous resource of energy at point of use for the health of community; economy experienced as the word’s Ancient Greek roots imply: οἰκονομία (oikonomia, “management of a household, administration”) from οἶκος (oikos, “house”) + νόμος (nomos, “custom” or “law”), hence “rules of the house(hold)”.  Maximizing the profit of mutual well-being will be the new measure of success.

The dawning of the Fire Era seems like eons ago. We’ve come a long way. Evolution seems inevitable. If the past has anything to show us, humanity is inevitably transmuting into an empathic civilization.

Evolution Through Cold Fusion – Greg Goble

“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?”- Charles Darwin

“We have to do the best we can. This is our sacred human responsibility.” – Albert Einstein

“In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.” – Charles Darwin

“Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.” – Albert Einstein

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science” – Charles Darwin

“Those instrumental goods which should serve to maintain the life and health of all human beings should be produced by the least possible labor of all.” – Albert Einstein

“The very essence of instinct is that it’s followed independently of reason.”- Charles Darwin

“Where there is love there is no question.” – Albert Einstein

“A human being is part of the whole… universe… ” source

To learn some of the science behind this theory please view “The Empathic Civilization” by Jeremy Rifkin.

Evolution (muse)

Once again, in wonder a child whistles a refrain while sitting on a hill under the shade of a tree. From above a bird on a branch tilts its head and once again joyfully warbles its response.

On a distant mountain a youth walks alone towards the high peaks. Arrives reflective of humanity, life, and wondering a part to play. A vision unfolds of all that has been and of what can be. Then returns to walk a path praying for the best for all thru-out time.

Elsewhere, an elder experiences the fruition of a hearts dream that has taken years to bring to success.

Others watch and inspiration blossoms deep within.

It’s no wonder my mind wanders in awe of it all…

Not so far in the distant future, the next generation will look back at our
generation as the last of the “fire era” and know that the term “energy shortage”
was a term for un-enlightened minds.-gbgoble2009