Navy Scientists Zip Lips on Cold Fusion Tests

Navy Scientists Zip Lips on Cold Fusion Tests

blog.wired.com

The Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) is known to harbor cold fusion enthusiasts.
Chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss of SPAWAR has described production of high energy neutrons with results accepted by a peer reviewed journal.
DARPA documents reveal that in 2007 they evaluated heat generated by Pd cathodes (evidence of fusion). DARPA in 2008 budgeted "correlation of heat observations & nuclear by-products."
DARPA looks to be involved in the "cold fusion club."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
blog.wired.com
blog.wired.com

I won't vouch for the results of the SPAWAR tests, but acceptance in a peer-reviewed scientific journal counts for something, no?

And, when DARPA is vaguely wording budget items that clearly relate to the by-products and signs of fusion reactions, that speaks volumes to anyone who has learned how to read between the lines.

There was a post here a month or so ago by an alleged Lockheed-Martin engineer/CPA/"janitor" who claimed that in the 3rd or 4th quarter of this year there would be an announcement or revelation that have the potential to change the course of our lives, though not commercially available for several years later.

He specifically acknowledged research being conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory. My understanding that Los Alamos and Southwest Research are both heavily involved in DARPA funded-research and both are in relatively close proximity to each other.

Isn't Los Alamos where another atomic energy breakthrough occurred a while back, "FatMan?" Do you think there's a connection "LittleBoy?"

"Bravo" for hydrogen fusion!


jw

blog.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by jdub297




"Bravo" for hydrogen fusion!


jw

blog.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

You mean for when they turn it into a big flippin' bomb?

Los Alamos is a Department of Energy lab, but they are all over the place when it comes to funding.

It would make sense that they might have some physicists looking into this; but since it is all more or less controlled by the Military Industrial Complex I doubt we will ever see meaningful developments come from them.

By meaningful, I mean technology that might break the choke hold the energy moguls have of on the planet.

The only way this technology will be available to change our lives will be if it is developed independently by an inventor or students which don't owe everything to the establishment.

Sorry to be cynical. It just seems like when you live in a world where commercial interests actually make national policy, it's unlikely that anything that isn't engineered to make them more powerful or richer is going to get a fair shake.

Sort of like the energy industries stubborn love of 'biofuels' despite that being the LEAST beneficial alternative we could invest in. They control the food, and the chemical engineering infrastructure..., that's why we won't be seeing energy developments anywhere that involve the elimination of combustion fuels.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by dashen
You mean for when they turn it into a big flippin' bomb?

That was accomplished in 1952. Project "Bravo" destroyed Enewetok and the Bikini atoll.

This relates to use of deuterium for "cold" fusion energy production.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Thank Goodness!


Imagine how Ticked off Arabia is going to be when we no longer need them...

reply to post by Maxmars

I have to disagree about supression of new energy sources.

Think about the threads here about zero-point energy and similar contrivances. If these worked, why hasn't someone capitalized on it? They've posted video, sold plans and kits, so you can't use the "supression" rejoinder.

But, if unlimited, cheap energy was available, don't you think GE would be selling more electricity-sucking toys? Wouldn't someone develop their version of a DeLorean Flying Car?

There would be a HUGE market for products and invention!

Bilderbergers and Rothschilds are not going to hide this - they are going to exploit it beyond anyone's imagination.

The Lockheed-Martin guy was "mrjenka" and his thread was ultimately closed because of taunting for not revealing his "sources."

But, he said something that may have a kernel of truth:

With in the next 3-4 quarters there will be "new" technology that will be made public, ...there will be drastic and significant changes to what is "normal" to us as of 2/15/09...

Although these "new" technologies will be made public they will not be utilized until many years later.

For more information I would suggest reading science publications and/or joining science blogs, or threads.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I didn't give him much credibility, but is this just coincidence?

jw

reply to post by jdub297


I admit that I am being cynical about the possibility. I hope you are right and those whose domain is commercial exploitation do 'release' this technology.

But it seems difficult for me to accept off-hand since I have seen the 'paradigm' in action with these people before.

I have often heard that the reason we don't see more activity in the solar-power department is because it is prohibitively expensive. I can't help but wonder, who sets the price that makes it so? Absolutely FREE abundant energy. Prohibitively expensive? Why?

We'll spend trillions propping up destructive 'consumption' technologies, because they are VITAL; yet the FREE source is left untapped because it's too expensive to make silicone wafers to harness the energy?

I feel that eventually society might ask them, of cold-fusion, "This isn't costing you anything to produce, the cost of the infrastructure to carry the energy was forced upon us over a century ago, and yet you still price it XXX? " Why is that OK? Do you own the sun?"

Perhaps by then, they will have contrived a governmental agency to decree that they do. It seems to be their way.

Still, I would rather be wrong than anywhere near right on this one.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by dashen

Originally posted by jdub297




"Bravo" for hydrogen fusion!


jw

blog.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

You mean for when they turn it into a big flippin' bomb?

Yes, like the current bombs are not enough to destroy the world so lets WORRY ABOUT ANOTHER ONE!

I love how there are rules to war.

"YOU CAN KILL ME, BUT NONE OF THOSE BIG BOMB THINGY MAJIGGIES, THAT IS JUST TO UNFAIR!"

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist

Originally posted by dashen

Originally posted by jdub297
"Bravo" for hydrogen fusion!

"You mean for when they turn it into a big flippin' bomb?"

Yes, like the current bombs are not enough to destroy the world so lets WORRY ABOUT ANOTHER ONE!

No, no, no! Do you not read history or even this thread?

My response (3 posts above) to this question was:"That was accomplished in 1952. Project "Bravo" destroyed Enewetok and the Bikini atoll.

This relates to use of deuterium for "cold" fusion energy production.


Deny Ignorance!
jw


[edit on 27-3-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by Maxmars

I have often heard that the reason we don't see more activity in the solar-power department is because it is prohibitively expensive. I can't help but wonder, who sets the price that makes it so? Absolutely FREE abundant energy. Prohibitively expensive? Why?

We'll spend trillions propping up destructive 'consumption' technologies, because they are VITAL; yet the FREE source is left untapped because it's too expensive to make silicone wafers to harness the energy?

I feel that eventually society might ask them, of cold-fusion, "This isn't costing you anything to produce, the cost of the infrastructure to carry the energy was forced upon us over a century ago, and yet you still price it XXX? " Why is that OK? Do you own the sun?"

Your giving the answer to your own question more or less...
Solar energy can be used in a small scale. You wouldn't need the infrastructure and you would not be dependant of a central distributor for your energy. There would be less control...and we wouldn't want that would we?

Thats why cold fusion will succeed. It can lift the US out of the depression and the people would still be hooked on the grid. And the best thing is it will be sold to us as 'green' energy. So there is no longer a need to develop other alternative energysources.

reply to post by Dorfl
If the fusion is"cold," couldn't it be small-scale as well? Maybe not individual/household small, but community-small.

If so, "infrastructure" would be akin to cable TV service and easily adaptable/expandable.

Maybe?

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Not likely. You have to put 'cold' in the right perspective. Cold could mean 'a whole lot cooler than the sun' but it will still be a couple of thousand degrees.

I think we will be seeing fusion-power plants in the future.

I hope i'm wrong though...

Ex_MislTech asked me to post this on my website a few days ago, maybe it's relevant here since there seems to be a conspiracy suppressing this technology especially seeing as almost anyone can do it... I mean where's the profit in that??

Google Video Link

Also the BBC had a good episode of horizon regarding the horribly expensive hot fusion BBC Horizon

[edit on 27/3/2009 by spitefulgod]

I'm not surprised by the secrecy.

Firstly, SPAWAR is a high tech military agency (about a mile from me in Point Loma just over the hill BTW) - most of the stuff they do is uber-secret.

Secondly, CF is a very controversial topic in the physics community, and openly embracing the idea can screw up your career from what I understand.

So it's no shock that these guys kept it under their hat until they had some results to show off. It just tells me that they're not stupid.

They're nuclear physicists, they better not be

"Couple thousand degrees" ? what a badly distorted "perspective" !
Cold fusion is expected to take place at room temperature and pressure.

Claimed successful 20 years ago by Pons & Fleishman, but turned out to be impossible to reproduce later on. Their patent was abandonned 10 years later.

Still the goal is "cold", not twice the lava temperature ...

reply to post by xmotex


Watch the video above, they are chemists from what I understand although with the issue of whether cold fusion has already been done seems to be able to be taken either way.

reply to post by SilentRunning


I think the word "Cold fusion" means that you don't have to create the temperatures yourself before the reaction of fusion takes place the heat is merely a bi-product of the reaction (you need the heat for fusion to take place). Hot Fusion is when you create the temperatures yourself in hope of producing fusion, or so I believe, I may be wrong.

I believe you are correct.

Hot fusion reactors need to be running at a lot higher temps to run at all - like a million degrees or so, not a few measly thousand.

This hit the boards just a couple of days ago.
Also Naval related.
Different Scientist... Something is up.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

My guess is that they ARE going to release technology in an attempt to regain their prominance on the world's economic stage.
Just a hunch though.



[edit on 27-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]