Richard, words fail me. I can only say that Mr Huhne and his kind are shameless and without any decency. How, once again, depressing to read this latest example of blatent money-grubbing, if not corruption.

This is how cheap energy is obtained:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6d2q-YxVvk

and this is how it is suppressed:

http://www.youtube.com/w...O-2k&feature=related

Dr Richard North, James Delingpole and the BBC Climate Agenda - Spectator.

http://blogs.spectator.c...-climate-change-agenda/?

How ironic, and doubly so since although paper poppies can only be bought in late October and early November Helmand poppies can be bought all year round, providing one knows the right (ie wrong) people. Was the irony unintentional I wonder. Is there no end to the depravity of those who rule ostensibly in our name?

Shame, thought we might be privy to some insider information there :)

Naughty, very naughty, blown your chance of a plenary indulgence this year [wot again?!], North lad.

It's hard to know what to believe these days. It sounds completely nuts and did at the time but.... (It's ALWAYS 'but'!)

There's always the difficult balance between keeping an open mind and a mind so open that the wind blows through it.

Fleischman's animated and insistent objection near the start of the film struck me as the outrage of an honest man traduced (wittingly/deliberately or otherwise, I wouldn't know) and I felt sympathy for him. But that's not science. And I could be wrong.

I liked the comment in the second video about the six occasions where they got nothing in the experimental set-up but three in which they did—presumably both excess heat and fusion products (helium)—and that it was those three that were the interesting thing here, not the failed six, so efforts should be made to see if they could reproduced those to find out what was different about them. Assuming the measurements were reliable, that is — a big if?

On the other hand, having a bloke in a white coat on film saying "nucular" doesn't exactly fill one with confidence about anything else he might have to say (which, IIRC, wasn't much anyway) or the judgement of the producers in putting him on. Unh! Why do it?

However, with all the vested interests and the corruption we've seen in the institutions of science in recent history it really is hard make a judgement. Even so, the conspiratorial nature of the implicit allegations against the institutions and the 'dramatic' production (even if it was fairly low-key) do still tend to put one off.

Is it really possible to overcome those horrendously large repulsive forces to get fusion in a test tube, in that simple atomic lattice they described!? One would need to see it to believe it. But it's not as if in practice each of us could check it out for himself in his kitchen even though that might be possible in principle. So we we end up having to take someone's word for it, or not.

Difficult.

If the effect is real and reproducible can it really be that the results are capable of being suppressed?

I no longer have a clue. I'll just have to hope that the wind doesn't blow too hard.

I'd like to hear ELF's take on this.

As far as I'm aware the Rossi LENR has been proved fake, Blacklight has has cold fusion just around the corner, sometime soon or whatever for years and someone who says nucular doesn't inspire confidence. Someone should ask him to say new, then say clear, then put them together FFS.

I've had a chance to dig a bit (just wiki, plus following links). There should be a decent neutron flux, plus some much weaker gamma. At one point the advocates were claiming non-standard relative decay probabilities giving lots of gamma. P&F initially claimed they’d seen gamma, but then appear to have dropped the claim.

So, the cat either ate a load of neutrons with a bit of gamma, or hypothetically a lot of gamma. Either way, it was a very naughty cat.

Edited by user 12 November 2012 19:18:15(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified