Chu, Gore and LENR (Philip James)

The following post was originally made by ECW reader Philip James on this thread.

Steven Chu and I were at a meeting together (on Biology) in DC when he was still Secretary of Energy. At the coffee break we were talking about other things and I mentioned Rossi and LENR to him (his security agents were looming nearby). He scoffed and said “Not possible”. He knows I am a “credible” scientist in my field and asked me why I thought it might be true. I told him “First, because the data is starting to look interesting. Second, for the same reason I am right in my own field against all odds… because it just feels right”. Not very scientific of me, I know, but in the absence of formal data, all you have to go on is your intuition. I was surprised to be honest though that he had not heard of it.

I was at the Kleiner Perkins Christmas Party in Atherton a couple years ago (KP invested in a company of mine). I brought it up to Al Gore in front of a group of people. He asked, “What’s LENR?”. I explained. He said “Hmmm… have not heard of it”. A few months later he actually did mention LENR publicly in some forum as an area of research people are looking at — he gave no opinion per se. I am sure he asked questions, or someone else has brought him up to speed — whether driven by my question or not.

Point is… repeated mentions “stick”.

I never expected to change their mind on anything. But being a “credible ” scientist in their eyes and even mentioning it takes it out of the comic pages and puts it on the radar.

My point? The more CREDIBLE people or scientists (such as yourself) who dare to bring it up to opinion leaders on the subject– the better. Bring it up to Dyson. He’s certainly not afraid of big ideas.

Both Gore and Chu are smart people (if political). If the report is positive, they will pay attention. They also both, to the extent I know them in limited ways, do care about “truth” and betterment for humanity. They are political in that they know they must work with the system. In addition, the THREAT that China or another country is going to take advantage of it will certainly change their point of view.

So… keep pushing. I’d be interested in knowing if Steve’s stance has changed in the last year.

  • Alain Samoun

    Reading Philip James’ post,I think that what he advises to do with scientists VIP can be applied to everyone. You will be surprise that when you talk to anybody about LENR/CF how fast they get the idea and consequences.

  • GreenWin

    Terrific ideas Philip. I have spent time with Freeman, and believe he will be open to at least look at the data. Chu is indoctrinated by MIT, which is unfortunate since it is about to take a great fall in prestige. Entirely due to the inflated egos of certain MIT alums and its plasma hot fusion unit – which is being defunded (Alcator C-Mod.) I suggest you ask Freeman to look at Robert Duncan’s ICCF leadership, and public statements from NASA Chief Scientist Dennis Bushnell.
    The question that Chu will need to answer – that will be raised at Congressional hearings into the stonewalling of LENR research – is why DOE is financially and politically in bed with DOD?? In my view this is a license to collude. These two agencies must be isolated from one another; keeping in mind that the underlying mandate of both is to “Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
    Further, in the future, we need a way to prevent useful technology from being sequestered by broad stroke national security claims. It is likely this is at least one culprit in the LENR stonewall saga. DOD and its partners in big industry, e.g. Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, cannot monopolize a technology critical to humanitarian purpose. This underscores the absolute necessity of a strong First Amendment functioning as the critical Fourth Branch of government.

  • LCD

    Great post Philip

  • GordonDocherty

    Bring it up to Dyson…

    I live just 10 miles down the road from Dyson’s headquarters… I’m just waiting on the third report… perhaps a link between Cyclonic technologies, Magnetic vortices, and focusing electron discharges? 🙂

    On a related matter, I imagined a CRT down at the nano scale, and was thinking how you could encourage the production of neutrons from focused electrons, protons and EM energy, using local magnetic vortices as a confinement mechanism to bring them to convergence… I have seen this possibility discussed elsewhere, and, indeed, this is an effect being used to great effect on the macro scale in LPP’s Focus Fusion device.

    That brings me to another thought: whether talking about Hydrino formation, transmutation or fusion, motion in confined spacetime is key – and using magnetic vortices is something even hot fusion uses, the difference being in hot fusion, the velocity and extremely high pressure of the hydrogen ions and electron cloud that is being used to (try to) overcome the Coulomb barrier, while in LENR, it is phononic and spin “resonance” (to reduce impedance to zero) and space-energy reduction inside a larger magnetic confinement well that is being used… or, put another way, hot fusion is attempting brute force, while LENR is using the particles’ own innate natures, resonance and differences in the levels of the virtual energy field between Casimir cavities and outside space to bring them together with minimal force. This is also the main reason why denying the existence of LENR effects because of the (near total) lack of the by-products of the violent collisions of hot fusion makes little sense 🙂

    • LCD

      Hey Gordon I really appreciate your post and Phillips,… been a while since I’ve read people who are versed in physics here.

      Here are some questions I have from your post.

      You say it is phononic and spin “resonance”? It sounds like you are pretty sure but I’ve read most of the theories and I’m not sure about any of them. Can you elaborate?

      You also say that denying the existence of LENR effects because of the (near total) lack of the by-products of the violent collisions of hot fusion makes little sense (since minimal force is needed?). But whether or not you have the energy to overcome the coulomb barrier is irrelevant to what happens afterwards. Even it if takes zero energy there is still a whole lot of energy released and there should be dangerous radiation. So while I agree with part of your supposition that it’s not like hot fusion I also have to say that the reaction can not be much like a hot fusion reaction after the barrier penetration. Would you not agree? The post reaction channels probably have to be something we have not considered.

      Additionally I will add that it has to be something that has a relatively hard time happening naturally or surely we would have detected it a long time ago.

      Thanks.

      • GordonDocherty

        ” I’m not sure about any of them” – like all theories, empirical evidence will be needed to unequivocally pick the right ones (note, ones – LENR+ is no one-step process – “has to be something that has a relatively hard time happening naturally or surely we would have detected it a long time ago.” is very appropriate 🙂 From what is understood so far, LENR+ requires a very specific set of preconditions to start – and further controls to prevent runaway (although runaway leads to destruction of the reaction sites and hence provides a built-in “fail-safe” mechanism.

        “Can you elaborate?” – Yes, but I would only be repeating what has been written elsewhere on this excellent website, so I ask that you look through the information and comments already provided.

        “there should be dangerous radiation” – only if the energy is released in a single, high-energy quantum. If energy release is smoother (zero impedance, remember) the energy can be radiated away (let go of) as a series of lower-energy quanta. – a steady stream versus a breaking dam is a good analogy. Additionally, any released quanta are going to have to negotiate crystal lattices (as in multiple particles) beyond the reaction site, so being absorbed and re-radiated on their way to “the outside”. Finally, LENR is not just (or mainly) about fusion. As you rightly point out, “The post reaction channels … have to be … considered.” There is (likely) Hydrino formation, slow neutron formation, transmutation and some fusion. Indeed, it appears to be the case that in a runaway system, fusion does start to dominate, but this quickly causes the destruction of the reaction sites and so dowses the reaction – the fail-safe mentioned above. It is for this reason that LENR needs good control to operate between minimal and maximal energy production, otherwise it would be possible just to “turn up the dial” and turn the whole into a high yield fusion device or, as the rest of the world knows it, a thermonuclear bomb.

        In the case of LENR+, as opposed to a “hot fusion” device, the aim is to create Hydrinos, Slow Neutrons and Transmutations, in that order. That fusion will occur (or, rather significantly increase) is something that a good LENR+ system will actually seek to minimize – at least until we learn how to focus the release of energy from any fusion reaction so as to reduce or eliminate reaction site destruction. One for a future episode of Star Trek, perhaps 🙂

        • LCD

          thanks

          I Can’t speak to much to hydrinos because last time I looked at them I came to the same conclusion that a lot of people came to which was that Mills wavefunction as is does not predict the energy levels of hydrogen because it’s not even square integrable. Has anything changed?

          I can speak a little to slow neutrons. I still don’t know how they would not be quickly thermalized and clearly detected. Ni is not a good neutron absorber and almost all isotopes have a high probability of bouncing a neutron with higher energy rather than absorbing it. Neutron lifetimes are long (accepted lifetime is about 14min) too. And in just a few bounces it can quickly be thermalized.

          If energy is not released in a single high energy quanta then in my opinion the input reaction should be an N body reaction where N is >>2. This presents problems for lots of the simple LENR+ models which assume more hot fusion type, but exotic, 2-3body reactions.

          I will look at your previous comments.

          🙂

          • GordonDocherty

            Considering LENR+ as an N body scenario is more appropriate, although its likely even that is too simple – a better model would be an N-vortex scenario, that is, more like energy transfer between vortices in a weather system. As to Ni not being a good neutron absorber, I believe the neutrons are rather being captured by protons in a process akin to (or even the same as) the Brillouin staircase model… as to square integrable, well, that all depends on whether the math being applied is correct for the scenario it is being applied to, or whether the math itself needs updating in some way…

    • Omega Z

      Your description sounds somewhat like my layman’s view. An extremely small nuclear explosion at supper slow mo spread over millenniums. In this manner it allows interactions that otherwise wouldn’t happen & the radiation given off would be only slightly higher then normal background.

      NOTE: In No way do I think this is accurate, But merely some similar type of process. My laymen way of trying to make sense of it.

      Rossi has stated in 1 intentional self destruct that neutrons were detected. And in the self destruct laid out to us went from 1000’C to 2000’C in less then 10 seconds. Some estimates were 1Mw energy was produced in that time frame to cause the Stainless steal & other materials including the ceramics to melt. Of course we have no way to verify that. Just images.

      We’re Lucky everything stops when it self destructs. Otherwise our tragedy list might read like, TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Bologna.

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    problem is not intelligence, it is groupthink and independence.

    people whose success depend on respecting others group opinion, cannot change their opinion.
    worst than that the integrate that groupthink as an identity.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Brian Josephson’s immunity to groupthink sets him apart from the other Nobel laureates. (Or it’s just that he’s a lot smarter than the rest of them that makes him the outlier.)

    • Gerard McEk

      Yes, so what Philip is saying: Try to change the groupthink by influencing/convincing scientists and ask then to be a scientist again. Tell them: THINK FOR YOURSELF AS YOU LEARNED TO DO ON THE UNIVERSITY, BE CRITICAL!

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        It remind me the film “V like Vendetta”… (did not see it full)
        at one moment the girl is no more afraid to die and push her values above her life.

        Academic are like people in a totalitarism (dictature or not), they are afraid to be eliminated, fired, to destroy their career be blacklisted, demoted…

        at one moment, older people, people already demoted, or people who feel protected (often wrongly, nobody is protected from groupthink even the boss, as you see in V like Vendetta)…

        In V like vendetta I don’t see why the parliament explode… it is useless because when the people are no more afraid, when they have lost the fear, game is over.

        what build groupthink is not individual qualities, but incentive structure.