This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
News

Cold Fusion Update From LaRC (Update)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
June 4, 2012
Filed under , ,

Keith’s note: On 26 May 2012 I posted “NASA LaRC now has its official cold fusion video online titled “Abundant Clean/Green Energy” which refers to a new form of “nuclear energy”. How do NASA’s Chief Technologist and Chief Scientist allow this stuff to be funded with taxpayer dollars without going through any of the agency’s standard peer review processes? Or do Rich Antcliff and Lesa Roe just fund this stuff with local center director’s discretionary slush funds and not tell HQ what they are doing?” I submitted a number of questions to LaRC regarding this research. I received a reply from LaRC yesterday and it is posted below.
Keith’s update: These are the most troubling parts of the LaRC response – apparently there are no publications related to this taxpayer-funded research. I asked. This is all they would tell me about: only a patent application is listed. FYI, anyone can file a patent application – about anything. People do it all the time. That said, after 3.5 years no one from NASA LaRC has published anything about this research – anywhere?
“2. How much has been spent to date on this LENR research and how much will be spent?: The average yearly cost for the approximately 3.5 years of the research thus far is about $222,000 for a total of about $778,000. The research is ongoing, and another $212,000 is budgeted for the remainder of FY 2012.
9. What publications have resulted from this NASA-funded research? (references/links
requested): A patent application has been published. Reference U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0255645.”

Full (official) LaRC response below

Earlier posts
Official NASA Langley Cold Fusion Video Now Online
Quack Science: Why Are NASA Glenn and Langley Funding Cold Fusion Research?
Why is NASA Langley Wasting Time on Cold Fusion Research?
LENR RESPONSES TO NASA WATCH -provided by Dennis Bushnell, Langley senior scientist and Joseph Zawodny, LENR principal investigator
1. Who is funding this Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) research at LaRC?
Langley is funding LENR research as an initial, exploratory study of a low technology readiness level, high-risk, high-payoff technology through its Creativity & Innovation (C&I) fund and the Center Innovation Fund (CIF).
2. How much has been spent to date on this LENR research and how much will be spent?
The average yearly cost for the approximately 3.5 years of the research thus far is about $222,000 for a total of about $778,000. The research is ongoing, and another $212,000 is budgeted for the remainder of FY 2012.
3. Who is the PI listed on this research?
Dr. Joseph Zawodny
4. What individual(s) made the decision to fund this research?
Langley’s Center Leadership Council (CLC) made the original decision to support the LENR research. The annual C&I continuations of this funding were approved by the Langley Science Council, which is comprised of Langley senior scientists. With regard to CIF, the LaRC Chief Technologist approved funding of LENR research using the CIF peer review process.
5. Was a formal proposal submitted?
A proposal was presented by the PI for consideration to the Center Leadership Council and another proposal was submitted to the Center Innovation Fund.
If so can you provide that proposal?
This documentation reflects the internal deliberative process for Agency decisions. In order to protect the Agency’s decision-making process by ensuring open and frank advice and recommendations are provided to Center leadership, this documentation is not being provided. This documentation may also contain information that would not be released on the basis of other considerations (e.g. intellectual property).
Was this an unsolicited proposal or did LaRC ask the submitter to provide a proposal?
The proposal to the CLC was made as part of an ongoing process of presenting technologies of potential interest to the CLC for decisions on funding and resource allocation. The proposal to the Center Innovation Fund was in response to a broad call for technologies relevant to NASA’s priorities.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/strategic_integration/grand_challenges_detail.html
6. Was this LENR research peer reviewed prior to being given funding?
It was reviewed initially by the CLC. C&I funding continuations are contingent on an annual peer review by the Langley Science Council. Both the CIF proposal and the C&I continuation proposals were peer reviewed.
If so, please provide a copy of internal reviews and a link to the LaRC process whereby this review was conducted. If no peer review was provided, can you explain what process LaRC used to determine that this research was worth funding?
The CIF and C&I review processes are attached (Note: we are currently updating the C&I process to reflect that HQ no longer requires reports and the Innovation Panel is being replaced by the Science Council). Additional information pertaining to the CIF is available at http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/early_stage_innovation/innovation_fund/index.html.
Internal reviews are not being provided because they reflect the internal deliberative process for Agency decisions. This documentation may also contain information that would not be released on the basis of other considerations (e.g. intellectual property).
7. Did anyone at NASA headquarters had a role in deciding whether this research was to be funded?
No.
If so, who was involved?
N/A
8. Does LaRC provide NASA HQ with status reports on this research?
Yes, updates and information in general about CIF projects are provided to NASA HQ. Last fall, Langley briefed the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT), with representatives from the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate and the NASA Office of the Chief Engineer present. As part of the general CIF review process, there was also a briefing at Langley, with copies provided to OCT, in June 2011.
9. What publications have resulted from this NASA-funded research? (references/links
requested)

A patent application has been published. Reference U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0255645.
10. Are contractors, subcontractors, consultants, or advisors employed to conduct this research? If so, please identify these individuals/companies/institutions
An activity was issued under NASA Langley’s cooperative agreement with the NationalInstitute of Aerospace in Hampton, VA, to scope an LENR access-to-space rocket. To date, this is the only contract action taken by NASA Langley in support of LENR research.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

58 responses to “Cold Fusion Update From LaRC (Update)”

  1. Peter Brett says:
    0
    0

    Seems pretty reasonable to me. Not entirely sure why you’ve been getting in such a strop about this, Mr. Cowing…

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Because, up until today, LaRC and NASA have refused to answer any questions on this research.  When NASA refuses to answer simple questions, you have to start wondering why – and if they are hiding things from others.

      • Matt Sevrens says:
        0
        0

        It’s simply because it’s a still a controversial technology. Full endorsement by NASA and then subsequently finding it to be false would be embarrassing. But the gains would be so great it’s worth it to look into it. At this point LENR is well supported, just not well understood. The resources are out there, you just have to look for them. But they’re not stupid, they know most people think it’s pseudoscience. They also know that they’ll get responses like the one they got from you. Let them work in peace. You can scold them all you want if they later raise the budget without putting out resources.

  2. Thom Landon says:
    0
    0

    Great information.  Not much of substance, but excellent follow-on!

  3. hamptonguy says:
    0
    0

    3.5 years and counting and yet i have heard nothing stated out of LaRC that states that useful energy is being generated, demonstrated, etc.  Public funds are paying for this.  Usually, LaRC is pretty anxious to get any achievement in the news as quick as practical.  To date, the entire LENR show has been lots of empty PR but no actual public peer reviewed demonstration.  Still seems like a hoax at worse (in total) but perhaps just harmless playing in the sandbox with regard to LaRC’s work.  Is LaRC going to eventually come out and say one way or the other with regard to the reality of LENR?  Still do not understand why DOE is not looking into this (and why is NASA???) if it is really credible or even has a chance at being credible.  Are they?

    Still seems like a dead end.

    • AlainCo says:
      0
      0

       you are the example of why there have been few real discovery (the breakthrough, not just the improvement) in the last 20 years.

      you also seems to miss many facts :
      – the fact that massive anomalous heat was proved in gaz loading of paladium hydride, by NASA GRC in 89. report was ket in a drawer untill recently. (look on they site, the bottom of a page on
      micro-captors)
      – the fact that SPAWAR have designed a protocol that reliably prove LENr effect and , despite the lack of funding (because of YOU and your clone). replicated.
      – the fact that Iwamura have design,ed a protocol to prove transmutation in gas loading experiments, replicated.
      – the fact that Pr Hagelstein make a working prototype at MIT IAP
      – the fact that an engineering school in Italy (Pirelli) is promoting an open design reactor (based on tungsten nano powder and light water) for experiments
      – the fact that researcher working on a nickel-hydrogen variant of LENR in gaz phase, proved high energy density production (Celani, Piantelli, Focardi…).
      – the fact that today 6 private team, are working for LENR products at different level of maturity (Defkalion claim industrialized, Rossi nearly so, Mills prototype for NASA, Brillouin, BlackLight, just need funding research- Brillouin just claim 2million funding).
      – the fact the the subject, despite the clear opposition of the world consensus, have been presented at CERN by Celani and Srivastava
      – the fact that today there are theorical explanation, compatible with Reference Frame of Quantum Mechanic… look for “widom-Larsen”, “Kim-Zubarev” “Takahashi”, “Brillouin”… so bad excuse of “impossible” does not even hold.

      look also at CERN about the conference of Celani and Srivastava , in
      March 2012. Celani give a very clear decision tree, showing that LENR,
      and even usable LENR cannot be anymore denied.

      this is not a so speculative domain, much less that hot fusion (that have no reason to work before many decades), than solar panel (that with today knowledge will never be cost effective). With today data, LENR will  be on the market either spring 2013 in Greece, or if more depressive, assuming private corps are all lying, it will work in 5 years of research is YOU (and your cone at Washington) don’t block it…

      LENR have suffered from a bas PR since the beginning, from MIT lobbying to kill it to promote hot fusion research, from Fleishman & pons hiding the difficulties (well explained today, like by SPAWAR conference on youtube).

      look for data on internet. I’ve made a summary article on lenrforum.eu

      if you as why nobody accept the facts…
      just read theory of Collective Delusion by Roland Benabou (princeton),
      and his pamphlet called “patterns of denial”.
      I’ve also made a post on that theory on lenrforum…

      you can doubt that it is true, like some doubt on global warming theories, or some doubt on climate skeptic theories, but you cannot say that it does not deserve a little research.

      Hopefully in todays situation, as Dr Celani says, public research lack of funding is no more critical… lack of public funding will only delay the breakthrough.

      what have slowed real research for those las 20-30 years is people asking for pretended rationality of funding, which in fact convert to rejection of any innovative idea, right or wrong.

      like is risk-capital, many research leads to no results, but on change the world and payback for all others.

      With LENR I’m now sure I will see a man on Mars.

      by the way, Benabou theory can predict that you will not try to find the inconvenient data that I refer to.

      I write for the lurkers.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        OK, so where are the URLs, titles, citations, peer reviewed  journal references etc. You cold fusion/LENR fan boys love to quote people but citing actual references seems to be something you cannot or will not do. Get back to me when you have an actual bibliography.

        • zacnaloen says:
          0
          0

          http://lenr-canr.org/wordpr… 

          If you go here and search by author for some of the names Alain mentioned you’ll find some useful papers on LENR. It’s a compendium of everything, so some is research papers, some are just popular science articles. LENR has a problem getting published in the big journals because Cold Fusion has a tarnished reputation, so it gets rejected without proper review. But there is the odd paper that gets through. Srivastava Y.N in particular has done some pure theory work that supports the possibility of these reactions at least happening. It should be possible for anyone versed in quantum mechanics to check his work out and confirm if it is correct or not.
          His research was presented to CERN earlier this year, along with Celani who has experimental work.

          I accept this possibly isn’t what you want, but until journals actually accept this research as it is intented LENR will never build be able decent bibliography.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            Ever wonder why journals will not accept LENR/Cold Fusion papers for publication? Could it be that their results are not reproducible? Could it be that the authors have not excluded other explanations for their data? I.e could it be that they are not following the rules that govern all other aspects of science?  Blaming the big bad science journals is a tired excuse.

          • AlainCo says:
            0
            0

             kcowing
            “why journals will not accept LENR papers”
            well explaind in my article
            http://www.lenrforum.eu/vie
            especially in the folowibng messages there are example and detail on how thi rejection is not rational.

            there is an article on the report 41.
            another is extrant from slides of jed rothwell…

            in that thread I add regilarily the examble of scientific consensus failure and fact distortion… not specific to LENR.

        • AlainCo says:
          0
          0

           I did not dare to put link because some site using the same engine block URL (next big future).

          my explanatiosn are there
          http://www.lenrforum.eu/vie

          the denial theory is there
          http://www.lenrforum.eu/vie

          but, I’ve already given all the keyword so that you can make research yourself.

          by the way, tehre are many crazy claims in that domaine, because manypeople don’t feel the difference between snake oil energy, and unaccepted sound scientific results.

          and don’t say that the consensus cannot be wrong (look at science history, plane, tectonic), that if the fact were so solid, people will know it in the mainstream (homeopathy still survive despite proofs, fear spread despite studies, Chernoby and Fukushima Hoax still spread in the media)…

          sadly we have to look at the data when the subject is sensible. even Wikipedia is corrupted like MIT is. and corps or governements follow the beliefs.

          there are still reason not to be absolutely sure, but the credibility have changed side.
          More assured than facebook equity is at 1$/share.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            Why do you LENR fan boys point to other websites but never provide links to actual published research papers?

        • Matt Sevrens says:
          0
          0

          I think I’ve replied to all of your posts willing to direct you to these “actual references” you’re looking to find. Contact me at msevrens@gmail. It’s good to be skeptical btw. 

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            No one can actually post anything. Why is that?

          • Gerrit says:
            0
            0

             kcowing

            Review paper of the field.

             Storms, Edmund (October 2010), “Status of cold fusion (2010)”, Naturwissenschaften (online) 97 (10): 861–881, Bibcode 2010NW…..97..861S, DOI:10.1007/s00114-010-0711-x, PMID 20838756just read that for starters inlcluding all the references to peer reviewed papers at the bottom.

  4. Prophet says:
    0
    0

    As you accuse Bushnell of ‘wasting time’ etc. Bushnell makes your gripes look pedantic with a detailed and diverse response.
    What’s wrong pure research? With your thinking pattern we would’ve never had any pure exploratory research. Let’s ‘waste’ lots of money on dead end projects 1,000’s hoping only 1 or 2 of them will change the entire destiny of humanity.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      He can’t provide a single article or publish paper? This is not research – its a hobby.

  5. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    The upside of this is so large that a very modest investment is certainly warranted. That’s the thinking that set me on a search: someone besides Dr. Zowodeny passed on this expense. The answer might provide a bit more support for the research: i.e., another scientist or group of the rascals saw the research and saw that it was Good.

    But who? Question 7:
    7. Did anyone at NASA headquarters had a role in deciding whether this research was to be funded?No.Huh?

  6. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    After COTS and CCDev NASA will not be needing a Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) for 30 to 40 years.  A LEO spacestation to lunar orbit and Mars orbit ship hopefully will be needed before then.

  7. sojourner soo says:
    0
    0

    Why do you object to this kind of research being undertaken by NASA? What is precisely your concern? I’m curious to know what drives YOU.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      No research publications after 3.5 years? This is a hobby – being done at taxpayer’s expense.

      • sojourner soo says:
        0
        0

        But, based upon the titles of your previous articles, one must conclude that lack of published research is NOT what your issue revolves around. It isn’t the lack of peer-reviewed publications that troubles you at all. What bothers you is NASA’s involvement in LENR research, period. Why is that?

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          Conclude whatever you want my anonymous friend.  You clearly have not read what I have written. The NASA LENR researchers haven’t published, cannot provide me with published papers or any status reports, and go out of their way to avoid inquiries from this taxpayer (and others) as to why they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on research their either cannot or will not explain.

          And in response to your lame attempt at name calling below – nice try – but I am quite the opposite of “neoliberal shill for big oil.”

          • sojourner soo says:
            0
            0

            The lack of published research is one thing. Referring to LENR as “quack science” and research into it as a “waste of time” tells me you have preconceived ideas about the field. That isn’t very “scientific” of you, now is it? Having somebody who is clearly close-minded running a website called “NASA Watch” is almost too funny. I suspect that NASA simply will not explain what it’s doing, given the global geopolitical implications of a new energy source for the non-carbon energy era. It won’t be first time their research is kept secret, nor will it be the last. Suck it up, buttercup. And try not to be so close-minded. It isn’t fitting and, moreover, it detracts from your site’s credibility. You just come off sounding like a neoliberal shill for big oil.

          • Matt Sevrens says:
            0
            0

            Hey dude, I know they wont send you their research, but I can send you the research of some other people in the field if your interested? I’d be glad to talk to you about why it’s a reasonable field to look into. Granted of course that you’re willing to listen.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        I doubt it is a hobby. It may simply be difficult work. Einstein never came to terms with quantum mechanics even though he had most of his life to do so. Some things just take longer. 
        If they do succeed, the return would be worth nearly any risk.

  8. Bernie Koppenhofer says:
    0
    0

    kcowing: I guess I am one of your “LENR fan boys” and I would classify you as “super skeptic codger”. I challenge you to spend one day of honest research into LENR.  When you run into names you respect, as I did, and listen to what they have to say and what they have written, you will change your mind.  

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Lets see: are you like all the others – pointing to each other’s fan websites – but never actually citing peer reviewed publications that cite repeatable, verified research results – or conducting verifiable research yourself? If so (yawn) this is getting old – and simply underscores my skepticism with regard to LENR and why NASA is spending money on it.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer says:
        0
        0

        Kcowing:  I guess your
        reply means you will not accept my challenge? 
        Chicken or the egg, no publication or institution that you, or skeptics
        like you, will accept will review anything that remotely hints of LENR, so you
        have set yourself up to be very surprised. 
        MIT, CERN and NASA might now be exceptions.  Reminds me of a retirement gated
        community  I lived in, the gated
        community was part of a larger city.  The
        gated community was surprised and outraged the city as a whole voted to
        increase their school taxes.  The gated
        community residents were completely out of touch because of their parochial surroundings.
         First rejections of LENR was based on
        replication, now that LENR has been replicated many times around the world the
        next hurdle is “citing peer reviewed publications” but only those publications
        that will not accept any LENR work.  When
        all else fails just call it “junk science”.      

  9. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    It seems to me that arguments of this type are certainly not new to science (or alleged science). There are lots of examples from past centuries and even up to the present times where there has been a severe split into for and against camps with respect to a proposed scientific theory. Some eventually proved valid, others did not, and some just sort of faded away and were forgotten.

    What I find more curious, and controversial, than the actual science issues is the way people behave when and if a particular theory is resolved. If LENR/cold fusion is conclusively disproved (if that’s possible), will its current proponents accept the fact, or will some of them insist on denying the disproof and attempt to continue their research? If, on the other hand, it should all turn out to be valid science, will its current detractors gracefully accept that they were on the wrong side of the split, or will they continue to endlessly sing the there-is-no-proof song, in defense of their selected position? On either side, how many will come clean and say, you know, I was wrong; and how many who were wrong (either way) will stand mute, pretending that they never had an opinion in the matter?

    One point that I think is worth making is a comparison of efforts. I am not for a moment suggesting that this topic is (or is not) as important as other complex scientific pursuits of the past, but I think it’s valid to consider the number of man-hours and dollars spent on things like the Manhattan Project and manned space flight, and the priorities given to them by government and industry, before undeniable proof and useful results were obtained, and then compare that to the relatively minor amounts of support given to cold fusion research (and other possible alternative energy sources too, for that matter). Also consider the basic concept of quantum mechanics (let alone its full, on-going development). How many people debated (with absolute conviction, but no actual evidence) for how many years before a significant number of scientists (and much later the majority) accepted it as a valid theory and used it to explain so many of the previously unexplainable observations in science and everyday life. To the day he died, Einstein himself, whose work was a precursor to quantum mechanics, rejected some of its implications.

    The science is what it is, and eventually we will accept the truth or falsity of cold fusion, whichever it turns out to be. But the behaviour of people with respect to science, I fear, will always be unpredictable and not amenable to theory. Curious.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Why is it that there is *zero* published – either in journals – or internal to NASA?  This is exceptionally odd.

      • Gerrit says:
        0
        0

        I don’t know if you are aware of these TMs ? They are a bit old, so I agree NASA could produce a new TM on this matter.

        TM-102430 http://www.osti.gov/energyc

        TM-107167 http://www.osti.gov/energyc

      • AlainCo says:
        0
        0

         first of all , as teh story of report 41 sho, it is very hards for papers talking of cold fusion to get published, even if written 10 times better than fashion subjects.

        second there have been many peer reviewed published papers by US Navy SPAWAR (note that they recently get shutdown because or YOU or your clone).

        Iwamura and replicators published too…

        anyway pal-review is not a perfect was to judge quality of papers. and LENR is not the only domain where the group denial and frauds can be proven.

        read “betrayer of the truth” of wade&broad, or climategate e-mail (whatever is you opinion on climate, the mails show evident manipulation of peer-review and magazines by consensus gatekeepers)

        look also at history of science, like Newton/leignis and acromatic lens, Wegener, Wright brother…

        those refs are in my previous article, or can be googled.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          You guys are really into conspiracy mongering, aren’t you?  Because something is no published that means it is being suppressed by sinister forces, is that it?

  10. Matt Sevrens says:
    0
    0

    I can direct you to peer reviewed publications, research papers, data if you like. The information is out there, you just have to dig a little deeper.

  11. David says:
    0
    0

    Dear kcowing, Time and time again we are hearing the “must be peer reviewed” mantra of the establishment defenders. Who says it must be peer-reviewed?

    Here is the main problem with that. A vicious cycle has been created. And here it is.
    The vicious cycle.

    1. All peer reviewed journals will not publish a paper on LENR, because LENR volatiles the our current laws of physics.

    2. Our current law of physics will not change if universities can’t/won’t replicate LENR.

    3. All universities will not replicate any LENR experiments, because they were not published in a peer reviewed journal.

    4. In the end no LENR experiments can be taken seriously because,

    A. LENR was not published in peer review journals.
    B. LENR was not replicated by any university.
    C. LENR results were not confirmed.
    D. Therefore our physics stays the relatively same.
    E. Civilization does not advance fast enough. Then the cycle continues
    again. I hope that you will make a way for not only fixing this cycle but
    preventing similar cycles from happening again. So that the field of
    science can advance into higher levels.

    At least all this is true for mainstream scientific journals.

    If mainstream science can’t look at cold fusion because of it’s
    inconsistent results perhaps a cold fusion device will show them that
    they have to redefine science or the process that science uses to
    evaluate and determines claims. If not mainstream science will always
    be playing catch up with the real imaginative, curious small guys
    working on low budgets. My think point will be proven soon with devices that output much more energy than what is being put in hit the market.

    Peace!

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      In other words I can write anything I want and call it “science” or “fact” because I (and a few of  my pals) want to? 

      • Thom Landon says:
        0
        0

         No, but you can’t keep claiming no peer review and not understand that reputable science has been actively rooted out and eliminated from funding.  It’s fair to be skeptical, but it’s not fair to continue to avoid facing the fact that after Fleischmann and Pons, LENR has been theory-non-grata in academia.

      • David says:
        0
        0

        No, what it means is that if you can consistently get excess heat then there is a science to it you just have to figure out why exactly it only works sometimes and not others. We have hundreads of labs from around the world who are reporting excess heat. Measuring excess heat is not that hard to do.

        Instead of doing that mainstream science just decides to say since it
        can’t happen 100 percent of the time and it’s never the same amount of
        heat that it’s not science or I don’t believe that. But that is not
        right. If you can consistently get excess heat of 5 percent then there
        must be a science behind it. They just have to keep testing to find out
        exactly why it only works sometimes. Some have reported excess heat over
        70 percent of the time. Per 60 minutes cold fusion video.

        I would think that if an agency such as The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA, says in an internal memo that they concludes there is “no doubt that anomalous excess heat is produced in these experiments.”

        The list of companies, goverment agencies and a few induvituals making excess heat LENR devices keeps growing. It’s only a matter of time before someone comes out with a device that can produce the same amount of heat every time. And I say it’s about time, some 20 plus years overdue.

        This is not as you say a “few” “pals” working on this.

        Peace!

  12. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    I have followed this field for about twenty years, not as a fan, but as a technology reporter and writer (although my degree is in physics and I studied with one of Oppenheimer’s colleagues). While the first five or ten years were characterized by more enthusiasm than rigor, some things became clear as time went on. 
    First, we are not dealing with “cold fusion.” Fusion has specific definitions in physics and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) do not always fit those definitions. Much of the original criticism of the field was due to traditionally trained physicists looking for traditional results and not finding them. LENR is the term of choice today for all but those who are, for whatever reason, opposed to the research.
    Second, LENR is sometimes lumped with other alternative fusion technologies such as plasma pinch and Polywell (which show some potential and have sometimes been funded by other agencies such as the NRL), and all are denigrated as a group. Interestingly many of those detractors come from Princeton or are Princeton alumni, the destination of much tokamak cash, which in turn funds hundreds of careers. There is a lot at stake for these people, and a LENR success would hurt them badly.
    Third, LENR is a new and unexpected field of physics, still imperfectly understood. This is an area of basic research, not an attempt to turn refined science into a product. It’s laboratory research, not engineering. Who would criticize Volta for failing to invent the light bulb, or Faraday for failing to invent radio? Though science moves faster today, we may be about where Faraday and Maxwell were in the 19th century vis a vis LENR. Personally, I’m glad these men were not subjected to matching criticism, or their funding pulled; it allowed them to accrue the knowledge that made Edison’s work possible.
    Fourth, as to a lack of public, peer reviewed papers, almost all researchers without tenure, some other form of job security, or an assured source of funding are reluctant to publish because of the over-the-top criticism leveled at those who do by the hot-fusion community, men who are not “peers” so much as competitors. I would say that nine out of ten LENR researchers are operating in stealth mode to avoid the anger of a venomous scientific establishment and a poorly informed press. Peer review in this field is a joke without a laugh line.
    In addition, the early reactions of the physics community to so-called “cold fusion”  drove US LENR research underground. Even though the ‘experts’ were criticizing something they didn’t understand for misapplied reasons, their views became entrenched in the less-than-rigorous minds of lay reporters. Also for that reason, most LENR research is now conducted outside the US. That, regardless of whether LENR proves to be good science, says bad things about the US science community and its openness to new ideas.
    Personally, and as a taxpayer, I consider Dr. Zawodny’s effort to be completely appropriate basic research, and the funding level to be perfectly acceptable. And he has already generated at least one patent application which may eventually pay for his efforts to date. While I don’t expect LENR powered SSTOs in my lifetime, I’m open to the suggestion that Dr. Zawodny may be privy to knowledge I don’t have.
    Furthermore, if LENR can be ‘proved-up,’ it really could be a paradigm shifter; this game is worth the candle, and a much bigger candle than Zawodny is burning. 
    So I say, more power to him, and congratulate him on the guts it took to sit down for that video. You can bet that the hot-fusion crowd has the knives out for him by now.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      oldscientist,

      Excellent comments.  Thank you for that.

      Steve

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        You’re welcome. Wish it had done some good. 
        There are so many people with personal agendas in this field that you can’t tell the players without a scorecard.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          And your name is …?  Anonymity is often synonymous with agendas … 

          • Gerrit says:
            0
            0

            Keith, that’s plain rude.

            Running a website where you allow people to post anonymously, but when they offer a view contrary to yours, you are showing them the door for being anon.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      NASA has provided *zero* publications or reports with regard to this research.  Odd.  Everyone else at NASA is held to a different standard. Stay tuned.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        The Office of Naval Research embargoed the late Bob Bussard’s Boron-fusion research for more than a decade (and has recently applied an embargo on new publication since resuming funding). Lack of publication sometimes indicates something rather than nothing. 
        It may be that someone in a corner office thinks there are national security issues here (which would be true if he is getting remotely positive results). 
        I believe you are holding this man to a standard he should not be required to meet, especially since he may not be permitted to publish and internal reports may be classified.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          Alas no one making these claims here on NASA Watch ever uses their real name … caveat emptor.

    • Thom Landon says:
      0
      0

       @oldscientist your thinking and review of the state of the art vis-a-vis LENR tracks my lay review as well.  Reviewing Zawodny’s patent, interviews and other critical data indicates that there is a consensus growing (outside of Fusion folks) that SOMETHING is happening.  It’s not well understood, controlled or yet capable of consistent replication and DESERVES scepticism.   But it also deserves review, research and resources (the three Rs of academia) and the loathing unreasonable hatred of LENR strikes me as sour grapes.

      I am interested to see the products of the research and if it can be modeled by theory, experiments develped and tested and rolled out as a proof of concept, then all of humanity will be well served.

      Thank you for your analysis.

      Thom

  13. Panice says:
    0
    0

    It is not unusual for research results not to be published if the funding agency embargoes the results.  This is obvious for classified research and can also happen with unclassified research.  The funding agency may seek peer reviews of the results and embargo those, too.  An example of this approach is Navy-funded Inertial Electrostatic Confinement fusion research described at Next Big Future:
    http://nextbigfuture.com/20

    The results to date have been embargoed, but it is known that the current research focuses on scaling and demonstrating hydrogen-boron fusion. Some of the significance of this is discussed in the comments at Next Big Future.  The important point is if they are researching scaling and p-B11 fusion, they must have answered a staggering number of other questions first.  All embargoed.

  14. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    You’re welcome, Thom.

  15. Brad Arnold says:
    0
    0

    While I don’t believe NASA’s “researching” LENR (i.e. “cold fusion”) will matter to furthering the science, I am very concerned that Mr Cowing appears to be anti-“cold fusion.”  Here is just a small number of citations that ought to prove to even a hard-head that LENR is legitimate:

    In November of 2009 the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) published Defense Analysis Report DIA 8-0911-003 titled “Technological Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance” ( http://www.lenr-canr.org/ac… ).The paper gives a rundown of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction work being done around the world. Among other things it notes: “DIA assesses with high confidence that if LENR can produce nuclear-origin energy at room temperatures, this disruptive technology could revolutionize energy production and storage, since nuclear reactions release millions of times more energy per unit mass than do any known chemical fuel.”Here is a detailed description of a LENR generator and formula that was producing energy over unity. In the March of 1994 US government contract F33615-93-C-2326 titled “NASCENT HYDROGEN: AN ENERGY SOURCE” ( http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/G... ), “Anomalous heat was measured from a reaction of atomic hydrogen in contact with potassium carbonate on a nickel surface.”http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/G... ), “Anomalous heat was measured from a reaction of atomic hydrogen in contact with potassium carbonate on a nickel surface.”By the way, here is a article titled “The New Breed of Energy Catalyzers: Ready for Commercialization?” ( http://www.cleantechblog.co… ), which contains a relatively current survey of all the companies that are trying to bring LENR to commercialization.http://http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/... ), which contains a relatively current survey of all the companies that are trying to bring LENR to commercialization.And if you still aren’t convinced, the first commercially available LENR generator ought to be available this year.  By the way, a operating LENR (“cold fusion”) reactor is available for public viewing at MIT (google it).http://http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/B... ).The paper gives a rundown of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction work being done around the world. Among other things it notes: “DIA assesses with high confidence that if LENR can produce nuclear-origin energy at room temperatures, this disruptive technology could revolutionize energy production and storage, since nuclear reactions release millions of times more energy per unit mass than do any known chemical fuel.”Here is a detailed description of a LENR generator and formula that was producing energy over unity. In the March of 1994 US government contract F33615-93-C-2326 titled “NASCENT HYDROGEN: AN ENERGY SOURCE” ( http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/G... ), “Anomalous heat was measured from a reaction of atomic hydrogen in contact with potassium carbonate on a nickel surface.”http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/G... ), “Anomalous heat was measured from a reaction of atomic hydrogen in contact with potassium carbonate on a nickel surface.”By the way, here is a article titled “The New Breed of Energy Catalyzers: Ready for Commercialization?” ( http://www.cleantechblog.co… ), which contains a relatively current survey of all the companies that are trying to bring LENR to commercialization.http://http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/... ), which contains a relatively current survey of all the companies that are trying to bring LENR to commercialization.And if you still aren’t convinced, the first commercially available LENR generator ought to be available this year.  By the way, a operating LENR (“cold fusion”) reactor is available for public viewing at MIT (google it).By the way, here is a article titled “The New Breed of Energy Catalyzers: Ready for Commercialization?” ( http://www.cleantechblog.co… ), which contains a relatively current survey of all the companies that are trying to bring LENR to commercialization.http://http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/... ), which contains a relatively current survey of all the companies that are trying to bring LENR to commercialization.
    And if you still aren’t convinced, the first commercially available LENR generator ought to be available this year.  By the way, a operating LENR (“cold fusion”) reactor is available for public viewing at MIT (google it).

  16. Bernie Koppenhofer says:
    0
    0

    Out of the NASA budget of $18.724 billion you are complaining about 100 thousand dollars being spent on LENR research?  If I were you I would be complaining about the 1.3 billion they  are spending on the Mars program.   Then again maybe it isn’t about the $100,000, there is something about LENR research that just makes the “powers to be” in the scientific community shake in their boots.  Could it be all the research money going into hot fusion could be in jeopardy? 

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      1. $100,000 is someone’s college education. This is not a trivial sum. Oh yes, NASA LaRC will have spent 10x that on LENR by 30 Sept 2012. That’s 10 college educations.

      2. Any NASA project that has zero publications or status reports (I have asked more than once) is questionable in the extreme and deserves media/taxpayer scrutiny.

  17. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    Keith,

    Please allow me to point out an obvious fact that, for some reason, has not yet appeared in this thread (that I can see). It’s simply the fact that not everything that is “published” or otherwise put into writing, appears on the internet.

    With respect, your comments imply that if there is credible material published on this topic which validates it, then people should be able to point you to one or more web links that have “research publications” or other documents (and further, they have to be from a source that you find acceptable, not just a related group of fans, which, I think, is fair, since anybody can put anything on the web with no review whatever).

    If you are willing to Google! the following:
    “cold fusion openly demonstrated at MIT”
    You’ll see a lot of sites reporting on the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT publicly demonstrating a working process this year, in front of observers, that works as advertised. These are all second-hand reports, of course, and therefore may all have come from the same source.

    However, I think we can consider these people at the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics as unlikely to be fakers or quacks, or even premature in their reporting. MIT has a reputation that I think lends sufficient credence to this demonstration.

    In one of this group’s published papers, in Chapter 48, in the second last paragraph, they note an example of why they couldn’t publish earlier results despite attempts to do so:

    Quote: “Despite all details provided in the manuscript and the apparently rigorous procedure, I cannot recommend publication of the manuscript. The main reason is that the manuscript and the associated documentation target the rehabilitation of the cold fusion concept; unfortunately cold fusion has largely been disproved among the scientific community.” (anonymous reviewer, 2010)

    This road block, as reported by other posters, has been real according to these people at MIT. The prejudice clearly exists, for whatever reasons.

    You can see this for yourself at:
    http://www.rle.mit.edu/medi… (second last paragraph)
    (Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT — Energy Production and Conversion Group)

    DARPA and the researchers for the Pentagon have come to accept the new work and are both currently doing more research into cold fusion/LENR (the distinction between these terms seems to be fading again). If you are at all interested, you can Google! them yourself.

    I don’t have much faith in television, but the 60 Minutes researchers are generally pretty good at getting to the truth. You can see: the 60 Minutes piece “Cold Fusion is Hot Again” at:http://www.cbsnews.com/vide

    It is important to realize, also, that there is not a single cold fusion/LENR process out there. There are several different schemes, some with variations. In addition, some of them don’t output excess heat immediately but can take, in some cases, up to a couple of weeks of operation before providing any gain. It may be that some of the “failed to confirm” experimenters would have had better results if they had waited longer, but that’s just a shot in the dark on my part. Not all of these schemes have proved repeatable, for sure, but some apparently have.

    There are actually a couple of reputable research publications that you can find on the web, but you have to subscribe to and/or buy them at prices that I’m not willing to pay.

    I think this is as close as we are going to get to being able to provide you with what you’re asking for. But in my opinion, for whatever that might be worth, I’ve given you enough to perhaps make you wonder if this topic perhaps deserves to be researched further and not outright dismissed. I’ve spent the time to dig up these links for your consideration. Are you willing to spend the time to look/listen to them?

    Steve