Bringing Cold Fusion Forward

Georgehants yesterday raised a question here that has stuck in my mind — about what kind of world do we want to bring cold fusion into. In my mind the kind of world we want to bring the world into is much different to the kind of that cold fusion will be coming into.

I would love to live in a world where everyone was looking out for each other’s benefit, and there was no greed, hatred or exploitation. In such a world cold fusion, or any other radically superior technology would be smoothly incorporated and could help in making a near paradise on earth.

But I think cold fusion is coming fast and it will come into the world that we have now, with its poverty, injustice, conflict, corruption, and a host of other problems. Maybe the more important question is how are we going to handle cold fusion and make the best use of it to help solve some of the pressing problems we face?

And there’s also the issue of who would decide how cold fusion is going to be used, and under what circumstances. If private companies introduce it (which seems likely), in free market economies it will be paying customers who will set the agenda of where and how it is to be used (with likely governmental oversight). We might see in countries like China, governments making those decisions. If industrial applications of cold fusion come first (Rossi’s plan), and domestic cold fusion devices are not available, the general public may not have much of a role in the early dissemination of the technology.

But maybe there would be a role for the public. In countries with democratic political systems, if citizens know and care enough they could vote for representatives who support cold fusion as an alternative energy source, and promote cold fusion-friendly policies. Citizens could also find ways to raise awareness and lobby leaders in business and government through various channels such as advocacy groups — and of course the internet is a channel through which cold fusion can be supported and promoted. Media attention will be also critical in bringing awareness to cold fusion — the media can play a great role in shaping public perceptions (as we saw in 1989 the first time around).

While cold fusion has the potential to solve many problems, there will almost certainly be resistance from certain quarters because where it will be seen as a threat to various interests. Bitplayer put it well yesterday here on ECW when he wrote, “the problem is not so much the ideal end state as how to get to the ideal end state.” A transition from what we have today, to where cheap and abundant energy can take us is going to be challenging, difficult, and unpredictable and we could see major disruptions taking place which could threaten incomes, industries, and even whole nations.

I’d love to see cold fusion embraced far and wide as a major energy source unless something better comes along), but I expect it will not be smooth sailing ahead. It could take a lot of work by proponents to see it adopted on a wide scale. Maybe there will be a growing realization that a far superior energy source will take us beyond the economics and politics that we have today, which are built on the assumption of scarcity of resources, to where new political and economic systems develop built upon the availability of an abundance of resources. It would certainly be a delicate situation to handle and it would take vision, wisdom and leadership at all levels to do it well.

  • Daniel Maris

    I think people are in danger of exaggerating the influence of the introduction of LENR.

    As far as I can tell it’s unlikely to produce electricity at cheaper than 2 cents per KwH – at least for several decades. On average energy makes up about 15% of energy prices, so if that equates to a reduction of say two thirds on production costs, we might see a reduction of about 10% in prices – but only after LENR has replaced all forms of energy – and that will probably require major advances in energy storage.

    So if LENR comes in, it is not going to be a new dawn, it will just help productivity overall.

    • SiriusMan

      I think it is perhaps premature to make estimates about how expensive LENR energy will end up being.

      If someone is using Rossi’s prototype as the basis for their calculations, they must remember they are looking at version 0.00001 of of the technology. Compared to what will come later, it is like comparing an early IBM adding machine to a modern IPad.

      How much will electricity cost once the $500 Chinese-made domestic E-Cat’s become available?
      People say the (USA) government will not allow consumer-level machines for 10 years…but did anyone give the Chinese/Koreans/Indians etc. that memo?

      I agree that energy cost is only one of the inputs into productivity…

      • bachcole

        I agree. Once LENR+ is accepted as real, the funds and scientists will pour in like Niagara Falls.

    • from defkalion’s data in 2011 , from my estimates of micro-turbine cost, it seems that home energy at 10x less expensive is possible.
      assuming that ratio works for the planet (I think it will be much better), and estimating the cost of a home generator, it will divide energy cost by 10, for 6 month of GDP.

      since energy is 10% of our consumption, it will increase buying power by 9% (I year of chinese growth only, 10 years of French growth).
      in fact cost of pollution, oil wars, delayed development, famine, centralization, will be so much reduced by LENr that you may expect much more…
      It will push employment in manufacturers, since everybody, everywhere will want to produce LENR reactors, and there is 6 month of GDP to work. if you take the 9% GDP of saving, it makes 6 years of work for the 9% people made redundant in energy sector. this let much time for new needs to be developed with the new wealth, to learn to work less and thus develop leisure industry, creating jobs… and you can add the the gain in non-pollution, peace, decentralization… but just a shock…

      my vision is that it will have more impact on moral of western countries, on pollution in emerging countries, and freedom to develop in poor countries.
      It will also launch a new technology revolution, burying the neo-malthusians who control western mindset today.

      it will kill all question on climate, since CO2 will be solved at no cost.
      It will stop many geostrategy problems and war, stop Saudi petrodollars which fund reactionary and terrorist movements across the planet. It will reduce Israel and Palestine importance, and funding, forcing them to make peace.
      I expect it can help China not to collapse, EU not to suicide , IPCC to be dissolved, Malthusians to be rejected from governments…

      • Daniel Maris

        Are you sure (a) you are including all the micro turbine capital and ongoing maintenance costs? (b) what is the max output of the micro turbine? There are also clear safety issues to be addressed re micro turbines.

        I agree with you that the E Cat’s geopolitical and environmental influences would be at least as and possibly more important as its impact on productivity.

        • the cost of turbines, designed to save energy, not to be cheap, is from 500 to 2000$/kWe (bigger cheaper). For a home CHP on average, few kW are enough (assuming peak is managed by microgrid).
          Heat need are few 10kWth…
          cost is 5-10k$, with much hope to decrease.

          maintenance was estimated few 100$/year
          fuel is negligible…

          many variables about the cost, first being that there is huge room for optimizations of price.
          a big thermal engine to run a car (10-50kWmech) is not much above 1000$ according to a car engineer I know, because of design and mass production.

          turbine are expensive because they are custom high-tech components, top performance, not mass produced with cost reduction in mind, at expense of efficiency.

          I agree that the x10 is not precise… like the 6 month GDP…
          I also assumed all was electricity, and most energy consumption is heat today, either as burning fuel or electricity.
          centralization at local scale may reduce cost too… MW units are much cheaper than kW units, but grid is expensive too.

  • georgehants

    Just like to thank Admin and those that took the time to comment on page.
    I think the response clearly shows that a fair equal society is a priority for very few people.
    It has always been said that we get the World that we make ourselves, well every-time we see the news and hear of inequality anywhere, then I suppose as long as it does not effect us to badly, we should just blame somebody else.
    We personally continue to take water filters etc. to Ghana at every opertunity, where people (children) are unable to have clean water, where a child will die from such things as Malaria because they cannot afford the simple drugs for treatment.
    Country’s such as the U.K. and USA where food banks are opening daily to feed those unable to compete in a capitalistic society.
    I have a dream.

    • Job001

      Enjoyed your fair society view. Looking around the world, at well developed best in class high GDP economies;
      Sweden has things under control since debt per GDP is low and holding.
      We should figure out why Sweden does so well. Nordic model, independant self sufficiency, favorable GINI of 23, strong manufactured trade base, neutrality.

      To evolve independent productivity and devolve destructive extraction and zero sum games of war and excess wealth concentration is possible and a very good thing with enhanced freedom as a side benefit. LENR is a good tool for promoting energy independence at national, local, and family levels.

      • GreenWin

        Small, largely ethnocentric nations have very few of the problems brought on by mass immigration and highly diverse cultures. Some, like Norway are a nation of oil millionaires due to their petroleum trusts.

    • bachcole

      Dear georgehants, I thank you for helping others.

      I do believe in equal opportunity for all. I believe in equality before the law. I do NOT believe that if we had a society that was perfect with regard to these two we would have equal outcomes. Everyone is infinitely valuable and therefore equal in value, but they are not equal in ability nor do they have the same abilities.

    • GreenWin

      Always enjoy your vision George. In past I have pointed to details for example re inheritance; should we exclude genetic inheritance?? I think we must not cast away the potential for delight, engagement, and yes, even JOY brought about by some human instincts. Barter, e.g. without greed leads to the village marketplace. Coinage is more practical than carrying around geese or chickens to barter with. Competition in
      unadulterated form is A way to distinguish those gifted or skilled in physical, emotional, creative, logical pursuits. IMO, diversity demands these human differences and distinctions.

      Where this blog is focused, on implementation of a clean, green, abundant source of energy available to all who need it – is an excellent start. LENR is capable of raising the standard of living for all people on Earth – including non-human entities. And, it is likely that without such entities, we would not have LENR at all.

      • georgehants

        GreenWin, I take note of your points and have tried to cover them in my comments, with such a wide subject it is difficult to put over the whole, which consists of many parts.
        My whole point is that all should start from a solid beginning where a guaranteed existence from say 16 is assured, everything for normal life being supplied.
        From that point of equality all are free to work harder or those that posses talents or abilities beyond the norm are rewarded if that is what they want with extra luxuries, big house etc.
        Many people at the “lower” scale of things I think would be very happy to exchange a say thirty year working life for complete security for life in a money and economic free World.
        This is the basic system and from there many clever people such as yourself, I feel, could think of all the answers to all the problems such as those you have raised.
        Such a society would be very happy I think to see those more talented and able to be rewarded, the difference would be that nobody has advantage from corruption or power or wealth above another.
        I will for you, try and put across the LOGIC of what I suggest.
        If you take a country such as the U.K. and stop time this moment then that is the status quo.
        Now people are eating, travelling,living and dying at a known rate.
        Now one looks for all the people working at this status quo point and list those who are producing food, driving trains, nursing, sweeping streets etc. etc.
        These are the people who’s jobs are the most important, if fact indispensable.
        Now remove every other job (for simplicity) and you will find that all those jobs are pointless and connected to capitalism.
        Now start time again and now only half the population has a job but the productivity and services continue at the normal pace.
        Society is now organised so that the remaining jobs are shared with all those now unemployed so that the working week is reduced considerably and retirement age comes down to say 50.
        This extra free time can be used to enjoy life or I am sure many would use it to improve themselves or help others.
        Many other points but If you read all this, well done.

        • GreenWin

          An interesting thought experiment. I suppose one must consider during the “stop time” period how do we gauge what is a productive job? For example, are people who work in the arts part of the productivity core? What about the defense industry? Big pharma and agriculture? Even financial entities like credit unions, and pension funds that invest union dues for retirement.

          Where I do find your vision inspired is the baseline provision of housing, healthcare and food. I am not sure how this is funded without a large tax base which means there are many more than just service jobs. But, there is certainly no better way to a just world than to have such discussions and to continue to Imagine.

          • LilyLover

            Annual reverse auction for each field or profession stating their salaries, with 2 generations of free unlimited education, we’ll know the true value of each profession to the society and the will of the students to undergo certain education for higher rewards.

            • GreenWin

              Lily, thank you for this reply. I do not clearly understand you suggestion. Does a Navy Seal get rewards and a poet get none?? What if the poet turns out to be Robert Frost?

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, thanks for reply, if you would be so kind I would like to continue and value your analysis over time.
            And of course would welcome any criticism, input from Peter.
            Must point out that trying to get my points across on this medium is doing my head in.
            One needs face to face communication in a room with a large blackboard.
            My example must be kept simple and I therefore base all my writing on a closed U.K. economy with no imports or exports.

            Now together with the difficulty of explaining a wide subject in a small space and my inability to do so correctly you have missed the main point of the thought experiment.
            You, I think are fully aware of the history of money, as you mention barter occasionally.
            Of course something more “usable and liquid had to be found, shells, beads etc. and then the great idea of coinage set at an arbitrary value of say half a loaf of bread and multiples thereof.
            Now money is today a complete illusion, manipulated corruptly by the capitalistic system and far away from it’s original purpose of simply easing transactions.
            If you think, you will find that the value of everything, at base is determined simply by the number of man hours needed to produce usable products such as food etc.
            Services have no value in basic terms other than the Food etc. needed to pay those giving the services.
            NOW at the point of stopping time everybody was receiving the basic needs and luxuries that is their norm.
            That is the point at which you must realise that you can remove all money, except for a “points” system that maintains the different levels of wealth of an individual.
            The production of all they require is built in and only needs to be maintained at the status quo.
            From that point everybody not working in production and needed services can stay at home and still receive the same “income” when time is restarted.
            This point is so important that I will say no more until we feel it is fully understood.

            • orsobubu

              georgehants, I cannot join the discussion, since I’m constantly moderated here. Keep up your good work and, from time to time, remember here that Marx posed the basis of the theory, and Lenin showed that it can possibly be done, if you resist to the war dogs of bourgeoisie counter-revolution. When exploitation of man by man will be eliminated, money will have no more sense to exist. Workers of the world, unite!

            • Fortyniner

              For what it’s worth George, I believe I understand some of what you are proposing, especially the concept of a ‘base’ level of communal support that ensures that every individual receives the necessities of life in a way that is independent of ‘money’. However I am at a loss to suggest any system that will reward those who contribute to society in a way that is in proportion to such contributions (or who would make such judgments of relative value), that unlike money, is not open to distortion by the values of capitalism and popular culture or exploitation by governments and other sociopaths.

              Btw, I wanted to thank you for the link you provided somewhere to bachcole – I have been exploring this site and linked ones over several days, with increasing fascination. It is potentially life changing stuff.

              • georgehants

                Peter, I am so glad you picked up on Victors site, I try to be very careful in recommending some sites as offence can be taken so easily.
                Could I recommend filling in the E-mail request form and you will automatically receive updates from Victor every Friday.
                Have to chat about my Utopia ideas slowly, as I said to GreenWin I really need face to face chat and a big blackboard to try and explain.
                If GreenWin reads this, you have mentioned several times now the cover-up of non-terestial visitors, could you expand a little.
                Best all. .

                • GreenWin

                  Got your message George. Frankly, it is plain to me and perhaps also to Peter that since 1947, there has been an overt project to “cover up” the appearance of extra-terrestrial life here on Earth. We have mountains of data, testimonials, personal testament, etc. to this. I think Dr. Ed Mitchell has best described the situation as the result of a frantic attempt to blackout ET knowledge in the US and allies by passage of the National Security Act in 1947. This put the meeting of humans and their cosmic brethren in the hands of a very few American elite – not bad by definition. But as we have seen, coverups lead to more coverups for fear the primary coverup was illegal, immoral or probably both. Dr. Mitchell makes no bones about it. He went to the Moon and is without doubt that ETs of some form are here and have been so for a long time.

                  Were I an Earthly diplomat George, I would recommend a full pardon for all humans ordered to keep this (clearly unlawful) secret. For those in command who remain alive, I would ask for an open inquiry. And I would ask that any ET entities come forward and explain why it was and is, they presume a need to “Take” humans for any purpose, benevolent or not.

                  I believe we are guided by higher powers. Those higher powers subscribe to a need for rigorous honesty in all manner of life. Such rigor has not been exercised with respect to visitations to Earth, in my opinion. And as such, the weight of failure with respect to introduction of extra-terrestrial life on Earth must be borne by both human and non-human entities.,

                • georgehants

                  GreenWin, amazing, I have a library on this subject as well.
                  1947 Kenneth Arnold and of course Roswell then Majestic 12.
                  I think just about all the astronauts are with Ed Mitchell.
                  Used to go regulary to the U.K. UFO conferences and read our U.K. UFO magazine until “unfortunately” the editor and organiser and a powerful voice for UFO’s, Graham Birdsall, died (conveniently) very early in life of a sudden brain haemorrhage.
                  I never did ask for my ticket refund that year as the situation left his wife with a lot of problems, cancelling the event and soon after the great magazine folded, about 2003 I think.
                  I had great interest in the work of Dr John Mack from Harvard until his death soon after.
                  I am sure you guy’s can understand why I have a slight feeling of aggravation against organised academic and professional educated people Ha.
                  I did put up the below link on the always open page at ECW but no body noticed, or cared.
                  Good to see that there are a few scientists willing to be Honest and
                  look at Evidence like Mr. Rossi, rather than like most of the herd just
                  close their minds, like so many so called “qualified” people do.
                  Scientists Call For Open, Informed Study of Psi Effects and Consciousness
                  Is there safety in numbers when it comes to science? Some 90 scientists
                  and academics have co-signed a letter, written by Etzel Cardeña of Lund
                  University and published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, that
                  calls for more mainstream support of open and honest investigation of
                  parapsychological topics, and related mysteries of human consciousness.
                  Cardeña stresses six points in support of his call:

                • GreenWin

                  George, it is my opinion that Linda M Howe is one of the very FEW real journalists left in this realm. She is courageous and thorough in here investigations and has contributed greatly to the mountain of disclosure evidence.

  • bitplayer

    Per my post yesterday (thanks for the nod, Frank!), a major thesis there is that
    A) the current world economic, political and social systems (i.e. social norms re religion, sexuality, victim-less behaviors, etc) are *actively maintained* by the 1% of people who draw the most material and status benefit from it
    B) these systems of the world very specifically cause billions of people tremendous physical and emotional suffering.

    Whether the 1%-ers are consciously and deliberately causing this suffering doesn’t really matter, because the systems of the world are the way they are because of their actions. For them to say that they can’t control everything or that everyone has the same opportunity to get rich is odious in the extreme. And of course many of them hide their actions behind “non-profit” and “unbiased media” organizations, by doing so clearly revealing their real intentions.

    And much as one might appreciate the mega-philanthropists and liberal and progressive leaders, they don’t seem to be willing to point to center of the problem, which is that the over-concentration of power by itself causes this massive suffering.

    (And I appreciate that the term “over” in “over-concentration” is relative; please substitute “mal-” if that seems more suitable. For me, “over-” carries the message more clearly and simply).

    Now, there’s a basic problem in this thesis, which is that it is not always obvious how the over-concentration of power causes suffering. But the basic mechanism is that over-concentration of power by the 1% limits the options of the 99% to pursue the relief of their suffering (which is after all in most cases personal to them and best resolved by them). Using this analytic mechanism, it is possible to start with *any* instance of wide spread suffering, ask “why are these people not capable of relieving this suffering?”, trace the cause and effect network, and shortly run into some greedy, ego-obsessed, meglo-maniacal #$@%!

    Having pondered this since my rather tame and short lived student activist days in the ’60s, the only things that I’ve been able to imagine that might effectively oppose the current movement toward inequality and over-concentration of power are 1) more women in positions of organizational authority, and 2) harnessing of moral outrage at flagrant abuses of power.

    #1 is on its way, historically inevitable in my view, but I’m not so sure its going to be the full cure. Women may (if I may tread on the edge of political correctness) generally seem to be more compassionate and collaborative than men, but institutional management and promotional practices may filter a lot of that out.

    # 2 is, I believe, a very real phenomena, at close personal range (i.e. a community homeless fund being looted by a local councilman, or simply a larger person beating up a smaller one.) but is diffused when it becomes more distant and abstract. And it is subject to emotional exhaustion, e.g. yet another famine in Africa.

    However, #2 is the best bet that I can see because of the intensity of the emotion it arouses. One might say that it would be better to increase compassion for suffering than anger at abuse, however, organized religion has been selling compassion for a long time, and while it has no doubt helped, we have only to look around at the results today to decide whether we think that’s causing things to change quickly enough.

    So how might a focused group of people go about
    a) further spreading and intensifying the emotional response (i.e. emotional condemnation of the selfish use of power that causes suffering), while at the same time
    b) focusing that emotional response on the mechanisms and drivers of over-concentration of power?

    Two things need to be accomplished:

    i) There needs to be a lot of elucidation of the mechanisms by which inequality of power causes suffering.

    ==> This can be best documented in massive multi-agent simulation software, an example of which is found in the game Democracy 3 (though not to confuse modeling of democracy with modeling the mechanisms of power and resultant suffering). Such software could be created in an open-source software project, contributed to by “world political system hackers”. The German Pirate Party might be amenable to this suggestion as a starting seed group. I would say there are probably thousands of software developers worldwide who would be willing to participate in this effort. A core group of a few dozen would be ample. I believe there would be plenty of donations via PayPal to support this effort,

    2) The theoretical mechanisms of power and suffering need to be augmented with many actual anecdotal instances.

    ==> These can be documented in complementary database associated with the simulation software. These instances can be captured by the equivalent of grass roots journalists and student political activists. I believe there are easily tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of such sources who would be willing to contribute. The granularity of the instances may get down to the level of who went to whose dinner party in the Hamptons and who was evicted from which neighborhood in Northeast Jersey (not that those might be specifically related, of course.)

    An interesting option would be eventually to leverage the use of IBM’s now openly available “Watson” artificial intelligence engine to look for relevant news and assign it to the appropriate locations in the database.

    This would also require a suitable governance mechanism to keep it from being corrupted or politicized. This might be supplied by a rotating committee of highly reputable senior academics (but this will never be perfect, as anyone who has looked into Wikipedia governance and results will understand.)

    The resulting software package and database would be open to review by *everyone*, and could result in many subsidiary analytic services, investigative journalism series, gossip sites and so on. A whole economy. Plenty of ad revenue for the downstream services.

    From my perspective, all of these steps are entirely doable. And the starting point is simply to take this idea and elucidate it and put it out there on the web. At some point someone will open a dedicated discussion site for the purpose of developing these ideas, and serious recruitment of the software, governance and data gathering teams will begin.

    That day comes ever closer.

  • georgehants

    Christina, I must ask you guys to do a little thinking and come up with answers to suggest for these problems.
    In this case people vote locally etc. for all there representatives, no politics involved just the most caring and able people put into positions of trust for which they earn more points.

  • bitplayer

    At one level, if LENR = just another energy supply, then burn wood, coal, oil, gas, uranium vs burn nickel, in either case get a stream of hot water or steam or electrons, maybe lower my energy bill a little, what’s the difference?

    At another level, if LENR = *much* cheaper and *much* more distributable heat and electricity generation, then 2 billion people who live on the edge of survival have less wood burning pollution, less destruction of the environments they depend on, more light for reading and viewing at night, more power for cheaper computing and media devices, more power for water purification, more power for power tools to construct basic infrastructure, more power for transportation options, etc, etc, etc.

    “Lucifer’s Hammer” by Niven and Pournelle gave an interesting picture of the world after a comet hits Earth, and the thing that made the difference between living in the 1850’s and the 1980’s was electricity. And paraphrasing Gibson the future is already here, it’s just poorly distributed.

    The largest and most egregious example of social injustice in the world (to me) is the feudalism that is practiced in large parts of the world. With electricity, people can quickly move away from dependence on subsistence farming and indentured servitude. They may first move to slums in the mega-cities, but they have more options there than back in the village.

    It seems obvious that physical heat and electrical generation is a major component of wealth production. As for inequality, it’s unfortunate that there is only so much beach front property in the world. But if I might be happier basking aside a nice public pool in the Sahel than wondering if the UN helicopters were going to arrive in time.

    Enough is as good as a feast.

    • georgehants

      bitplayer, your mind seems Wonderful.
      I need you to see what I am suggesting and help me come up with all the practicable answers that people like to have answered for the,

  • bitplayer

    Article in the New Yorker about how populist “empowerment” movements get transformed into just-another mass-scale industry, with examples from the 1900’s, the 1960’s, the personal computer “revolution”, and now the “maker” (i.e. 3D printer) movement. I think the lesson is that large-scale industrial business practice is unavoidable, and probably a good things in terms of distributing the benefits of technology, and that it needs to be improved rather than replaced, such as through mitigation of negative environmental impacts (in progress) and labor abuse (barely happening, though some signs of relief on the low end e.g. in China and Bangladesh).

    Re LENR, there will certainly be garage-tinker LENR devices, however, most people will just go to Home Depot or Radio Shack.

  • Private Citizen

    If ECat comes to fruition, would like to see a powerful grass roots movement for domestic use. Make politicians know they will not be elected unless they bend to the popular will.

    Among the larger philosophical issues is what this tech will do short-term to the carrying capacity of the planet, and what long-term implications that population will have. Those who envision the utopia of lying in a hammock while ECat carries their freight might consider that it might also enable 100 billion or so new hammock dwellers.

    • eyedoc

      I’m confident that (& as A.Rossi is aware) once in production at any level , the ‘garage mechanics’ of the world will reproduce this phenomena and it will be properly in the ‘ peoples hands’

      • bachcole

        Good point. Let anyone try to stop it.

    • Fortyniner

      This seems to be a fair summary of what anyone hoping for some kind of Utopian world deriving from the introduction of cheap, clean energy is up against.

      • Private Citizen

        @49er, Good link. Indeed my thinking does tend toward the Malthusian (I dare say short of rejoicing when a baby dies). And while the article relates Malthusianism to warming alarmism, I am adamantly a warming skeptic.

        But the greater argument against Malthusianism stands. I can only argue that technology, thus far, has increased the carrying capacity of the planet and only exacerbated the eventual bust in the population curve.

        We’ve fished the oceans to near extinction and are using fresh water at unsustainable rates. Perhaps technology will push past these hurdles and allow the population curve to swell to an even higher bust point. I can’t refute the argument that technology *might* keep pace with population, but my intuition is that eventually it will not.

        Yes, there are arguments that populations are leveling off, still rising tremendously overall, but frankly i haven’t any faith in the corrupt leadership anywhere nor in blind chaos to see a better world bursting at it’s absolute limit.

        • GreenWin

          Peter, a very good overview of the failure of the $3T climate campaign. The lesson here I think is, do not attempt to introduce mythology in the face of access to knowledge . The internet has given many access to arcane, disenfranchised, heretical, even gnostic knowledge. In particular the continuing empirical reports of climate cooling. The arrogance of this selfishly imagined “climate campaign” is an indication that some “higher powers” on and off Earth, are unfortunately narrow minded or perhaps addicted to old school power.

          The greatest failure we see over and again? Arrogance, to think that Informed Consent is not a mortal, or divine tenet of any good work. It is PRIMARY!

    • georgehants

      Private Citizen, If I am correct I think it has been clearly shown that the more secure in their life a family is the less children they tend to have.
      Something to do with needing children to earn money to support them in their older years.
      I am no expert, perhaps somebody has more knowledge.

      • bachcole

        That is certainly one of the reasons. A reason why education works is that educated people live more in their heads than people whose only fun in life is to be found between their legs. And so educated people can find more fun things to do. Also, prosperous people can go to water slides and such; poor people can’t afford to support water slides, big screen TVs etc. So both prosperity and education help. And of course, education helps people think through the consequences of their banging.

        My wife and I have two children. She just could not stand the thought of another nine months of seriously being burdened. I am crazy about children, but I don’t have to be pregnant for 9 months, so deferred to her decision and got snipped.

      • Private Citizen

        “One can argue that prosperity limits population–or that certain kinds of “unearned” prosperity incentivize reproduction.”

        The *unearned* prosperity point is something you and bashole might have undervalued in a reflex to point out that that when children are seen as earners and support, as in the 3rd world, there are more of them. I well understand that more developed countries have lower birthrates. Have seen those infographic TED talks too 🙂

        There are ample examples in this world of well-meaning incentives, such as food handouts or financial support for out-of-wedlock issue causing unintended consequences (where children are “unearned” earners) of greater population and greater dependence on handouts. After $27 trillion spent on the war on poverty we in the US have arrived at a larger population and a welfare state with 1-in-6 depended on EBT breadlines, and millions more on school food programs and other handouts to survive. Birthrates among the handout class, despite universal free education, are 3 times those of the working class. I do take your point that in developing countries where children start becoming more of a liability than an income source, population tends to level off.

        Question is how would benefits of ECat befall the population, through govt. income guarantees (with, of course extra for needy larger families) or with imposed disincentives for population growth, which now are seen as attacks on the poor?

        Radically Increasing the carrying capacity of the planet will almost certainly radically increase population. Put up a larger bird feeder and you will get more birds; any population will swell up to and beyond the carrying capacity of its niche. Because humans are nominally intelligent might mitigate the laws of biology, but I seriously doubt it.

        • GreenWin

          Carrying capacity rise due to E-Cat seems unlikely. More likely an abundance of energy at very low cost can fertilize vast arid areas, e.g. North/East Africa with desalinated water projects. Replacing wood burning cook stoves with communal LENR cook spaces or small self-contained solutions, will reduce mass deforestation from burning wood for heat. Hello NRDC, Sierra, Boulderites??

          The welfare state might consider incentive programs that provide food stamps commensurate with volunteerism, community service (paid and unpaid) for those capable. A return to some form of vocational schooling where manufacturing and service jobs are not exported wholesale.

          In developed countries there will be large scale need to decommission aging grid infrastructure and replace with community, district, municipal micro-grids driven by LENR appliances.

    • bachcole

      Prosperous AND educated hammock dwellers don’t make so many babies. The Indian state of Kerala has had great success with just education. And if you check out Notice that I have set both axises to “number of children per woman”. Now you click “Play” and watch how in the past 40 years the number of children per woman in the world has plummeted from really high numbers like 7 and 8 toward 2 per woman. I suggest that everyone save the base url of This site is just filled to valuable information in ways that make the world much more understandable.

  • georgehants

    A new system introduced in the U.K. to try and stop the rich and powerful’s offspring from gaining all the places at Oxford and Cambridge university’s, at the expense of the more talented but less well off students.
    Magic Circle’s Clifford Chance Introduces ‘CV Blind’ Interviews to Tackle Oxbridge Bias

    • Fortyniner

      The candidates’ accents will tell the interviewers all they need to know.

  • georgehants

    It will be very interesting to see how Mr. Rossi and his partner handle the situation.
    He is I think a very caring man but will either take a path to maximum profit, or just maybe, introduce some way of spreading his technology to those who need it most.
    If capitalism is maintained then almost nothing will change, we will still be paying high prices relatively for the benifit of just the rich and powerful.
    These people will not give up their god given right to keep the masses down, unless the people wake-up and start demanding a new system for the 21st century nothing will change very much.
    Unfortunately as with Cold Fusion the people who should of acted, scientists, let them selves be steamrollered by authority and establishments , the same will happen after the E-cat as is happening now, inequality.
    Every person has a voice and the Internet gives the forum for that voice, if nothing changes it will be the fault of every citizen who owns a computer.

    • Sorry to dissent, but you describe crony capitalism as implemented in russia, France…
      If people a free to develop LENR reactors, to use it with reasonable rules, to invest in LENR startups, to create startups, to build reactors, to invent variants of LENR reactor, or to exploit patents of others startup who are selfishly happy to get money, to make business that compete with old business because of LENR advantages…
      the LENR will develop quickly, and various people, and many clients will benefit from LENR productivity gain, cleanliness, safety…

      of course in crony countries, few megacorps, state companies, will force innovators to be absorbed. the government will forbid usage by peoples, and by small companies. they will over-regulate LENR reactors so no innovations will be possible without the help of big-corps lobbyist…

      it will make money flood in big corps who will not event give it to their shareholders , the retired peoples, but who will use it to increase bureaucracy, and waste the money that LENr will have saved.
      they will prevent small companies to benefit of LENR, manufacturers to invent LENr appliance…
      business will continue as usual, with many employees in big corsp and states companies, with top executives having huge bonus….

      • georgehants

        AlainCo, you said —-
        “Sorry to dissent, but you describe crony capitalism as implemented in russia, France…”
        I am afraid you have started on the wrong foot.
        You will have to read my comment at the bottom of this page.
        I describe no capitalism, that is the whole point, but a new system based on equality, but from that base all can improve themselves with work or talent.
        The rest of your comment is therefore not relevant.

      • Alain Samoun

        You do not have to live in a crony country, LENR will be so disturbing to the current economy that you can expect reactionary events everywhere to suppress it or to try to adapt it to the system and yes especially in the USA. Again LENR or any other form of energy that gives control to individuals or small community sign the death of the economy that we know.

    • bachcole

      The so-called rich are not a monolithic group that has mastered the art of groupthink. In fact the competition and animus among the rich can be quite striking. When people become more mean, as the studies show when they become more rich, they don’t include a soft spot within their hearts for other rich, mean people. They would just as soon become rich by screwing each other as by screwing the rest of society. And given anti-trust laws, it is certain that they will compete against each other and the price will plummet. Otherwise there would be no explanation for economic events like Henry Ford making cars that the rest of us can afford. The case could be made that we the lower and middle class use the mean-spiritedness of the rich to work for us to keep things rolling. Their mean-spiritedness towards each other is one of the lubricants that keep society functioning properly. This also explains why Warren Buffett and Bill Gates love each other but despise other rich people and actively try to make other reach people pay more taxes. This is common among rich liberals.

      • ilk

        It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
        – Adam Smith

  • georgehants

    Could I just make the point “again” that without capitalism and profit, but a fair sharing system where people are happy to work short hours and short working lives for all, then their would be no waste, the E-cat would be brought in to action as soon as possible and all outdated technology’s removed.
    The people put out of work would of course celebrate the freeing of more people to “enjoy” their lives.
    This system starts from the position that everybody at age say sixteen is entitled to a small home and all fair needs, health etc. no mortgage, no bills etc.
    No inheritance, no rich and powerful, no unearned privileges, everybody starts from the same position and moves on in life to their abilities and desires.
    One then is rewarded by the extra work one does for society or one’s extra talents etc.
    There would be nobody wasting their lives working in tax, vat, accountancy, investment, any financial merry go rounds for profit, only need and fair desires.
    millions out of pointless jobs.
    They, like in many other areas would be out of work, ready to share the remaining necessary jobs to better society in general.
    And a TRUE democracy where all decisions are made by the populations and only the most concerned and talented rise to positions of public office, local, national and global.

    • ecatworld

      It does sound like a great system, George, and a society in which I’d like to live.

      • georgehants

        Admin, Roger is of course correct about Unicorn’s, but my reply from John Lennon was better, Ha.
        Some body once said “from little acorns great oaks grow”.
        Well we never know it could be from this Website that the acorn falls on to fertile soil.
        “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday you’ll join us. And the world will live as one.”

        John Lennon

    • Christina

      Georgehants, it sounds great; but how with a few hours work, is anyone going to make enough money to survive: pay, for home, food, clothing, schooling, savings, insurances, and so forth? Remember, the employer can’t pay much more on the whole because the company, most of which are small businesses, are paying out small amounts to larger numbers of employees rather than larger amounts to smaller numbers of employees. Most small business owners are not making oodles of money in excess of paying employees, restocking products, rent or mortgage on buildings, insurance, taxes, etc. Their own personal take-home pay may be sufficient for survival or enough to live well, but that probably wouldn’t be better off than say $40 to $50,000 a year to support their own families, if they’re lucky.

      So how would people make enough money to only work a few hours a week? I don’t understand.

      Oh, I have an idea. Everyone’s money is invested by their parents at their birth. All gifts are sunk into mutual funds at 75% in the mostly stable companies and in only 25% in companies that return great if they flourish. After putting their own money into their mutual funds after they are single and working, perhaps workers can use the dividends off their investments to bring their income up to $40 – $50,000 a year. These people aren’t rich; just comfortable.

      But what in our economy would be thriving so much that we could do that?

      Could it perhaps be companies that explore space and bring back minerals and discoveries with which they–and all the energy the E-Cat promises–can make new things to better the lives of everyone on the planet by giving everyone jobs, especially in nations which are now poor?

      I am no economist, but it seems to me without a backdrop of “riches” coming from somewhere, this lowering of work hours and living comfortably still is unattainable. The only way I can see to accomplish that is to gamble that our solar system has resources we can use to better our lives and thus to glorify the generosity of God the Father.

      We can then go out there and harvest that bounty employing everyone who wants to work and finding ways to house and feed those who for whatever reason can’t work.

      The first step is to really rachet up the education of all our children. They need math and science in spades, boatloads, and at Warp 9.

      Then, when the E-Cat has had its tests that reassure the public that they are not the menaces that nuclear fission plants are and the money pit that nuclear fusion plants are, we can build the Enterprise platform and visit the planets and see what is in interplanetary space we can harvest. Eventually, then, we can go to the stars and trade with our neighbors wherever they may be. But first we have to start. We have to trust that God made the world, the solar system, and the galaxy so we can thrive. Then we have to go for it so we never have starving populations on this planet again. But it needs to be a concerted international effort someone has to lead. Why can’t the people of the United States do that? After all, we can talk to each other now. Parents should demand higher math from elementary school on asking for software that teaches it because principals are not going to find enough teachers conversant in math. In the 1960’s, I was taught geometry in high school by a coach. Had we had a program that made math exciting, how many of my class would have been mathematicians or scientists.

      Georgehants and everyone else, have a great day and may God bless you and everyone else.

      • georgehants

        Christina, a very long comment, thank you.
        I would prefer to handle just one small point at a time with such a difficult subject.
        You ask —-
        Georgehants, it sounds great; but how with a few hours work, is anyone going to make enough money to survive:
        Everybody starts off at say sixteen with a guaranteed level of income (points) that include free housing, etc. they will either still be in education or starting there say 30 year work life.
        It must be remembered that in this system there is only productivity, which would stay much the same as now.
        It simply removes from work every person not involved directly in the production of food etc. etc. and services etc, which would put approximately half the population out of work.
        The necessary jobs etc. are then shared by short working hours and early retirement.

      • bachcole

        George likes to think that sweetness and gentleness can be enforced with a gun. That is what the force of law is: the threat of gun power. A sweeter and kinder society will evolve naturally as people become sweeter and kinder, and LENR+ will help.

  • Andreas Moraitis
    • eyedoc

      Thanks for posting this….great info

      • Pekka Janhunen

        It seems to be in a refereed journal, one of the editors is a Finn working in Espoo and studying organic solar panels, Peter Lund. The paper seems to be behind a paywall.

        I tried to read the abstract but I didn’t understand it, it doesn’t make sense to me. For example, what is “nascent H2O” and how its “m=3 state” (?) could have as high energy as 81.6 eV.

        I tried to look at BLP webpages and read about Mills’ theory. He seems to postulate that hydrogen can be turned with H2O catalyst(?) to a much lower energy “hydrino” state, and that hydrinos would form dark matter because as compact objects they would not react chemically. However, such hydrinos would still not be extremely compact, so they would still interact with nuclei, for example, and also they would interact with X-rays. We should then see some hydrino X-ray transition lines caused by interstellar hydrino dark matter. The hydrino concept (“fractional” hydrogen state) is also in contradiction with single-particle quantum mechanics. Given these problems, I don’t see a chance for such theory being correct. It might be that BLP has anomalous energy release. Perhaps he sees some form of CF.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Yes, the concept of
          hydrino looks fairly strange. I’m far from being an expert, but I think most
          physicists would agree. However, in such a case the question is not if the
          theory is true, it’s just that a paper in a peer reviewed journal might help to
          convince the jury. Many startup companies who apply for funding cant show
          something like that.

          • bachcole

            The problem with the peer review system is that reviewers can’t distinguish between what they consider to be real and what is good science. Consequently a lot of new discoveries don’t get published and take years, even decades to become accepted. It greatly slows down the discovery process.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Besides, the calorimetry they are talking about is surely independent of their theoretical explanation of the effect. If the calorimetric measurements were done properly, this could be an indirect support for other research projects in LENR.

            • I don’t like blacklist approach, because it is too much focussed on theory (hydrino are really hard to swallow, but anyway even Brillouin behavior annoy me).

              however ignoring their theory, if they have something that work, no problem. you can invent something real with a bad theory, if you don’t fraud yourself.
              However as LENR tragedy of denial shows, love of theory push most people to ignore fact and avoid inventing what is dissenting.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Although Iceland has geothermal energy, it might be the ideal place to initiate a LENR based economy because they were smart enough to jail all their quislings. Then it could serve as a model to the rest of the world.

    • Alain Samoun

      It looks like more Sweden will be the first…