418) First 2015 contributions
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ, 07043
The CMNS discussion group, to which I belong, remains active. Numbered examples of recent contributions are shown below.
1) L.K. (myself) asked: "What is more important, in a published report,
(a) the description of the protocol, which the author wants to be recognized as a reproducible way to generate excess
(b) the description of the method by which such heat was measured by the author?
I think that (a) is much more important than (b), especially in the context of our present situation.
If I were still experimentally active, and if I had new excess heat results, I would focus on the protocol, and on the main
result--how much excess heat, at what mean input power, and for how long. THe rest would be less important. I would not worry
about absence of details in the description my calorimeter.
... In fact, new experimental data are more likely to be recognized as reproducible when different methods of measuring excess
heat are used, for a given protocol.
Naturally, a description of my calorimeter would be included if it were unusual, or if the goal were to teach calorimetry.
Explaining an experimental result, before it is recognized as reproducible, might become a big wast of time. I would not try to
do this, except in an usual situation, for example, if I actively particpated in collection of experimental data.
1) X1 responded: "I agree completely. As to (b) what is important is the data and actual analysis. (a) without (b) is useful as a proposed experimental approach, but won't necessarily move mountains. (b) without (a) is not reproducible. ..."
2) X2 responded: "Ludwik, why would any one want to explore a protocol claimed to make nuclear energy unless it was actually shown to do this? In the present discussion, the protocol claimed to make Ni active seems very simple. Setting up a device to test the protocol is neither simple nor inexpensive. Nevertheless, I agree showing how to make active material is more important than proving it is active once someone cares to test the protocol."
3) X3, referring to organized suppression of CF, in 1989, wrote: "The suppression of cold fusion is not a "story" or a "narrative." It is a fact. It was the most savage and effective suppression of academic freedom in the last 200 years. The people who carried out this suppression did not hide their identities or their motives. On the contrary, they bragged about their roles. They still do. Robert Park vowed to 'root out and fire' any scientist who supports cold fusion. He said that to me, in person, and to others. He meant it, and he and others damn well did it. ..."
4) X2 , responding to this description, wrote: "Well said, X3. The rejection was without mercy and is continuing. No change in response by anyone would have had any effect on the rejection. The rejection was fueled by academic and commercial interests that apply even today. Nothing will change until the effect is made so commercially viable that rejection is no longer an option. The rejection is not stupid, unreasonable, or based on ignorance. It is based on pure self interest. Consequently, nothing we say can have any effect. Nevertheless, a rational effort to explain and advance understanding would accelerate the required commercial application."
5) L.K. wrote: "I agree with these two observations. Why doesn't the US government try to end the CF feud, by promoting objective research? The cost of such research would be relatively neglible. But, according to X1, supporting one or two promissing research projects would not be sufficient. In a subsequent post he wrote: "The real issue is the money lost when CF takes the place of conventional energy. The money involved in the various aspects of finding, refining, and moving energy is so great that introduction of LENR will cause significant disruptions. The smart people who run the financial world know this. I predict every effort will be made to slow introduction of this energy into the commercial mix. That is why significant money is not going into the field.
A conspiracy is not required when most scientists react to the same self interest, which is your point. This self interest exists as long as money is not available. Money will not be available because the people who control money would be hurt if LENR works. That is my point. The situation is truly diabolical."
6) L.K. wrote: "The issue, in other words, is not only morality and science; it is economy. But something is not clear to me. Attempts to develop other nonconventional sources of energy, such as solar, were not blocked by the same immoral politicians? How can this be explained? Didn't they know that mastering of solar energy might also 'cause significant disruptions'? "
Selfishness and competition exist in all fields of human activities. But the CF episode seems to be highly unusual, in terms of duration and high caliber of participants. A random fluctuation, I suppose.
7) Addressing X2, X4 wrote: "Actually, you do not need a conspiracy, you need several groups of people having
A- Most scientists do not want a revolution in science, they want to continue in their career. They have worked hard
to reach their position, and entering in a new field, especially like electrochemistry and calorimetry is difficult.
When yo are a senior scientist with all your knowledge, you do do not want to start all over again like a graduate
B- Energy and finance industries are not interested in a new competitor. There is already plenty of energy in the
world, as we can see now with the price of oil. Imagine that the major news agencies announce that with 1g of nickel,
and some additives you can produce kilowatts of heat! For a few days, billions or maybe trillions of dollars will
evaporate immediately on the stock market. Economy is very fragile and sensitive to any news. Nobody wants that. I am
sure that the day the announcement of the rebirth of CF, the opposition will be fierce. The greens will argue that cheap
energy will deplete the earth, the nuclear industry will claim that there might be dangerous radiations, since it is
C- The military did not want CF. Martin Fleischmann said that he wanted the field to be classified, but it was probably
8) Referring to my post, X3 wrote: "Solar energy was not blocked because until recently it was too expensive to
compete, so the fossil fuel industry did not fear it. Recently, power companies and others have begun serious
efforts to block it.
Wind energy, on the other hand, has been attacked by the fossil fuel industry for years. It now produces 5% of U.S.
electricity, meaning it has taken away roughly 10% of the market for coal. The coal industry is fighting it tooth and
nail. For example, a Member of Congress from West Virginia, a coal producing state, tried to pass a law banning the
use of wind energy in the U.S., ostensibly because wind turbines kill birds. This is preposterous; coal, nuclear and
other steam generators kill millions of birds from steam and smoke, whereas wind turbines kill a few thousand."