Paul and Ryan Hunt Featured on Minnesota Public Television

A short news segment on Minnesota’s Lakeland Public Television station features Paul and Ryan Hunt of the Hunt Utilities Group at Pine River, Minn. The Hunts are currently involved in carrying out experiments on Francesco Celani’s proprietary nickel-alloy wire in connection with the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project.

Nice to see cold fusion back in the news.

  • http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

    The interviewer were ignorant.

  • http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

    Idiots reporting on geniuses.

  • Gedo

    No need for Government funding , public funding with even with $1 donations will solve the problem – Special trusted site for collecting such money is needed.

  • georgehants

    Morning Peter, Morning GreenWin, where are you, need some good comments on page.

    • GreenWin

      Hi George,

      I have just seen this comment and Pekka’s below. I am interested to comment on the PPPL letter from young hot fusion scientists. To me the key issue is this statement: “The fusion program has a public image problem: It was supposed to deliver cheap and safe nuclear energy long before many of us entered the field.” This is highly politically charged since unmet promises to deliver value for taxpayer investment are big targets for budget cutters and skeptics.

      Hot fusion researchers have for far too long promised a miraculous outcome from a science incapable of even containing the source of study – ultra hot plasmas. The public image problem is self-created at PPPL, MIT, and Los Al, not simply because they have failed to deliver after 60 years and billions of taxpayer dollars, but because they have spearheaded the ignominious attack on alternative fusion research, i.e. LENR. The laws of higher consciousness dictate that these attacks reflect back upon the attackers – thus, the “public image problem.”

      As these young scientists point out, their studies are not exclusive to hot fusion energy, but include the generalized study of plasmas both terrestrial and throughout the cosmos. If so, they need to embrace evidence of alternative approaches to fusion phenomena – and not make enemies of those pioneering alternatives. In other words, the hot fusion community needs to broaden their thinking, look at the evidence as have NASA’s Dr. Bushnell, MIT’s Drs. Pam Boss and Hagelstein, U Missouri’s Dr. Robert Duncan, LANL Ed Storms, U Illinois Dr. George Miley, the Italian ENEA, Japanese, French etc.

      How fast will PPPL’s image problem (and domestic funding) turnaround should they agree to broaden their research to include LENR anomalous heat, transmutations, fusion artifacts, etc.?? Overnight. Because they will have a legion of New Fire champions behind them – who have rather unimaginable wherewithal. Princeton grads especially should be familiar with the political verity of… quid pro quo.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Princeton plasma physics laboratory plea against hot fusion budget cuts from September 2012, fire.pppl.gov/under_40_letter_2012.pdf (second attempt, first disappeared)

    • georgehants

      Pekka, It is understandable for these people to try and protect their own jobs etc. in this capitalist society that forces such natural protective thinking.
      In a sane World where a new technology such as Cold Fusion arises then many from the Hot Fusion community would I am sure be happy to move to research Cold Fusion if it did not effect their life style.
      Then there would just be, as always friendly competition to be ahead of other technology’s, that of course is a fun and productive way forward, where the most promising naturally becomes more funded and researched.
      Regarding your reply re. UFO’s on the other page.
      Agreed, re. a possible mechanical probe etc.
      But do you agree my point that no matter what the answer, the incompetent attitude of the science administration and many scientists who consider themselves intelligent and yet are so easily taken in by debunking and denial must end.
      Do you agree that it is sciences main purpose, to competently and unbiasedly investigate any anomaly regardless of any ridiculous opinion saying this or that cannot exist, regardless of the clear Evidence.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I agree that experimental anomaly driven science is not fairing too well in the funding game, because such projects do not benefit some existing company and because no other scientist can say “I predicted it”. A prototypical case is “Hessdalen lights” phenomenon in Norway. It is a decades old unexplained phenomenon. It has been studied and the studies were funded by both voluntary UFO groups, by an Italian science funding agency and Norwegian university. Still, the nature of the phenomenon remains obscure even today. Most likely, by investing more we would now know what it is. Things are not black and white though, anomaly driven research gets funded, but at a rather low level.

        • georgehants

          The lights are very interesting and as you say despite effort, unresolved.

          That should be the impetus that drives an inquiring scientific mind to search harder for the answer.

          As you say many things are certainly not “black and white,” but when they are not, science seems to almost totally collapse into a denying stupor instead of an excited curiosity.

          This of course is unbelievable damaging to any scientific method or principle.

          Would you agree that science needs to open it’s mind and be prepared to always follow Evidence and totally disregard the wide negative, almost religious opinions of much of science that such things as UFO’s cannot exist simply because it is against a dogmatic doctrine.

          When the EVIDENCE shows clearly that UFO’s (whatever they may be) indisputably exist, for science to keep denying such things, rightly makes Science to the public and competent thinkers look like amateurish closed-minded sects.

          • georgehants

            Sorry for all the space lines in my above, they appeared all on their own.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            The thing is that people are people, not spirits made of pure energy. If a funding agency announces that they fund research of anomalies, they gets lots of proposals saying “we have an anomaly and we need funding”. Then it’s difficult to judge who is serious and who is not.
            There was, and still is, a recognition in science that interdisciplinary research is underfunded. There is nowadays a written commitment of agencies to support that kind of research. Still, the common wisdom among scientists seems to be that getting interdisciplinary proposals accepted is very difficult. Anomaly-driven research hasn’t yet gained even that status.
            At the same time there is an overabundance of funding to many types of research which can even in the best case produce only incremental progress.
            One thing which must be kept in mind, however, is that a viable science project needs two things: a worthwhile goal and a realistic path for reaching it. It’s surprisingly difficult to have both at the same time. Getting to know what UFOs are is certainly a worthwhile goal (and I don’t think many would disagree), but writing a realistic research plan how to reach that goal is much harder.

            • georgehants

              All true and understood, but looking at the difficulties and practicalities is very much on course to finding an answer of, how to professionally research these important and deeply scientific subjects.
              My point again, finding the best and most effective way to research is an obvious first step with any phenomenon and easily solved by a competent administration, but I am concerned not that science could not research these subjects but at the unscientific stigma associated and nurtured by science itself.
              I do not think I am overstating the case when I say all denial and opinion is scientifically irrational and professionally incompetent.
              To make my point clearer, to have scientists such as Dawkins and Hawkins giving opinions that are then absorbed by unthinking individuals that there is no creator is very damaging to science.
              No scientist has the slightest idea of an origin and a creator is just another unprovable possibility as viable as any other theory on the subject.
              By denying a possibility out of hand with not the remotest piece of Evidence to support one’s case is amateurish, unscientific and incompetent.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        In any case, concerning PPPL, the point is that apparently their budget has been cut for 2013, for whatever reason.

    • Omega Z

      Pekka, That’s a lot of people on that list that would have to retrain for new jobs if LENR succeeds.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    OT and possibly old news. I noticed from Physics Today a plea of hot fusion people against US non-ITER budget cuts from Sept 2012, http://fire.pppl.gov/under_40_letter_2012.pdf, signed by many “under 40” scientists.

    • LCD

      Yeah I see the dilemma