This is; it was my 2004 - 2009 home

page at; until they closed.  Here it is minimally updated

November 17, 2009 by lynnferd at This is still relevant.

Other pages accumulated which were not linked from this un-hit page.

>     >    >    >   >   >  >  > > >>>+<<< < <  <  <   <   <    <    <     <


6-25-04 Scroll down these printable {use tiny rims} pages. Oil’s gush is peaking.  Can we adapt little suns?

Oil is finished!  Will even some efficient

SUV cope with star-like power sources?

By Lynnferd Keeran  (Websites for this information are at the end of this page.)  [This is on my ]

Unpublished Letter to editors here was to accompany NASA’s 12/2/02 report or the 12/15/02 Jl of Applied Physics’ paper below


    Oil is finished!  NASA’s real water fueled Blacklight rocket shown by Rowan University’s Marchese report, dwarfs fuel cell power capabilities.  Blacklight's safe star-like oxygen catalyzed mono-atomic hydrogen chemical process, verified by 26 independent labs, is almost nuclear power.  Water vapor fueled devices can abate global warming.  Sun-like vacuum bottles generate electricity via solar cells around them, amid Blacklight’s 10/24/02 EPA presentation. 

    Blacklight's elite board emphasizes that beyond free water being “fuel,” revolutionary non-radioactive “hydrino” byproducts are precious and pioneer huge patentable chemical classifications.  Journal papers are often lectured to the American Chemical Society; Blacklight provides hydrinos.

    Randell Mills’ ultraviolet process disproves an 80-year-old physics theory.  Read Village Voice’s Blacklight articles.  Hydrino Study Group’s independent chat includes critics like Clinton’s science advisor.  Mills, Harvard’s 1986 MD, devastates ridicule within his 979-page theory, downloadable free.

    I suspect hydrinos form around lightning and hydrino theory confirms biblical rebuke of soul-wandering dimensions that non-classical quantum mechanics theories permit.

    Everyone must cope with obsolescence psychology that depreciates combustion equities.  Healers foreseeing fuel squandering and manufacturers stagnating should immediately manifest affordable engine retrofits that simultaneously improve efficiency dramatically and assure compatibility with Blacklight Power.

    1997’s comprehensive scenarios at The Arlington Institute and Infinite Energy are commencing.   


By Lynnferd Keeran , lynnferd at

    I am an inventive independent researcher with a BS in Industrial Technology from Illinois State University 1971.

    Two years ago I sent  a similar letter to the above.  It was published, 12/2/00 page A12 as:

New source of energy can abate global warming.  Find it and others on their archive to establish my ID to you.

    Blacklight addressed an unnoticed “Global Warming and Energy Policy Conference” on November 26-28, 2000.  Get the report of their solution given at the conference.  Find it listed on the website map at:

-   -   -   -   -   -   -

-The Hydrino Study Group: members review and assess Mills’ classical quantum mech. theory amid: 

-Village Voice: 12/22-28/99 “Quantum Leap” Mills’ radical new theories: 

-Village Voice: 4/26-5/2/00 “The empire strikes back” next patent pulled:

-Village Voice: 1/26-2/1/00 “Dr. Molecool” Mills’ big new medical tech.:

-Village Voice: 12/6/02 “Eureka?” interviews NASA & Jl of Apl’d Phys:

-(Engineers defend Mills Theory & show math’s basis):

-Journal of Applied Physics 12/15/02 [Blt.’s excess heat analysis]:

-Fallacy of Feynman's (QM) Argument on the Stability of the H Atom: amid

NASA’s water fueled rocket: in slides 27-30.  The Sun-like water plasma power generator via solar cells, in slides 60-64.  Get ’s “technical papers” lectured to the American Chemical Society.  Join the Hydrino Study Group chat like Zimmerman, President Clinton’s science advisor.  Blacklight surely ends the age with Daniel 12:4’s prophesied transportation and knowledge increases.  Blacklight’s new science confirms biblical rebuke of soul-wandering dimensions to reality derived from non-classical quantum mechanics theories, Hebrews 9:27, and Second Timothy 4:3.  Insight though, is blessed, Ephesians 1:17-23.  It certainly is inexcusable now to not see God through Creation, Romans 1:20.  Jesus mercifully returned for worshipers who openly follow God’s respectful loving leadings, Romans 10:9, .  1997’s comprehensive future scenarios are commencing & Blacklight is mentioned  in:   <underscore spaces >.  Infinite Energy’s 1997 comparable cold fusion predictions:  & see prev. pp there.


&     &     &     &    &    &    &   &   &  &  &  &&&&&  &  &  &  &   &   &    &    &    &    &     & 

Hydrogen is not the answer to our fuel needs

because it is not even an energy source -YET!

 By Lynnferd Keeran 4-10-03  lynnferd at  about 3 pages [This is on my  ]

From The Wall Street Journal article found at: (underscore spaces):

Hydrogen Fuel May Be Clean; Getting It Here Looks Messy:

Auto, Oil Companies Wrestle With Huge Costs to Build Delivery Infrastructure

By JEFFREY BALL  Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL  [Page A1 story on 3/7/03]


[The Wall Street Journal’s front page reports on GM’s prototype (with steering, brakes, and throttle controlled by wire)]

   …“The (HyWire) car is powered by a hydrogen fuel cell, a device the auto industry and the U.S. government are heavily promoting for its potential to clean the air, curb global warming and reduce reliance on foreign oil.

   The auto industry, big oil companies and the U.S. government are touting hydrogen as an environmental savior. But the road to a hydrogen economy is riddled with potholes.  Even its boosters estimate that, if it ever materializes, it won't be for a decade to a half-century.  Hydrogen, which requires less of a spark to ignite than gasoline does, presents such tricky safety issues that some technicians wear antistatic lab coats when filling a tank. What's more, the process of obtaining hydrogen will emit carbon dioxide even if the cars running on it don't.

   Perhaps the toughest question of all is: Who will pay for the giant network that will carry hydrogen to the nation's gas stations? …

   President Bush conceded in his [State of the Union] speech that the hydrogen push will be tough. But he said the effort is worthwhile because the promise of fuel-cell-powered cars is so great. "It won't be easy to get there because there are obstacles," he said. "But we'll achieve this. It's going to make economic sense to do this, it's going to mean that our air is cleaner and our national security is more secure. It's going to happen."

[Not exactly.  See why Hydrogen is not the answer to our fuel needs: because it is not even an energy source -YET!]

   … But for all the talk about taxpayer subsidies, the auto and oil industries still will have to pony up billions if a hydrogen infrastructure is to take shape.

   …Though it's one of the most common elements on the planet, hydrogen has to be pried from other substances that contain it. Today, the likeliest source of hydrogen for fuel-cell cars is natural gas. Stripping the hydrogen from natural gas, called "reforming," emits carbon dioxide, the chief suspect in causing global warming.

   …There are two problems with this method, called "electrolysis." Both result from the amount of electricity needed to break apart the water. One is that it's expensive. Another is that it isn't as green as it appears, because here, as in much of the world, electricity comes from burning fossil fuel, a process that itself emits carbon dioxide.

   The green dream is to produce hydrogen from water using electricity made from renewable sources such as the sun or wind. …

   …Given the estimated cost of about $1 million per car, a spokesman said, "The feeling was that fuel cells cost so much you clearly can't demonstrate thousands of them."

   …DaimlerChrysler's view was … technologies such as fuel cells "have no hope, in the near term, of reaching high volume or of making a significant impact" on the average fuel economy of the U.S. auto fleet. “ 


[Above underlining and editing of the article from the front page of the Wall Street Journal 3/7/03 for comment below.]


   I have long known that it has been a foolish thing for an intelligent society to attempt, to pursue dangerous expensive hydrogen as a widely distributed chemical and call it a fuel.  Hydrogen is being misrepresented as a typical “fuel.”  A hydrogen economy is especially unwise because hydrogen’s overall pollution and efficiency is not competitive with hybrid vehicles on the road already.  Sure, fuel cell technology may improve but so will the hybrids.  Hybrids will always win because as an inventor I know of wonderful improvements and adaptations coming to rescue the internal combustion engine. Don’t be confused by the talk about hydrogen fueling a “fuel cell,” the hydrogen is not the real source of the energy.  Hydrogen is just an intermediary (or go-between) chemical in a terribly high tech “hydrogen economy.”   Hydrogen is not found free from its molecular compounds, like in water molecules, H2O, nor is hydrogen found free for the taking like coal or oil!  Hydrogen must be created or generated with more energy than can be gotten back out of it when it recombines in fuel cells to form water.  Hydrogen’s function resembles a battery’s because you have to put energy into the battery’s chemicals to get it back out later.  Hydrogen systems even can be thought of as resembling a simple wire (a hydrogen wire) because you must put power in one end to get it out the other end.  GM has named their future prototype cars “HyWire” because they use hydrogen fuel cells and wires, not levers to link the driver’s controls to the vehicle.  In GM’s HyWire, Hy should have meant that hydrogen is like an electrical “Wire,” where quantities of hydrogen act as linkages or HyWires to the real electrical power sources.  Hydrogen is a costly and dangerous chemical linkage from source to application.  As a linkage, hydrogen is not needed; but as a source, yes.

    Fuel cells are fueled battery cells.  Large power storage batteries are limited by the amount of active chemicals they can hold.  The chemicals that are used up in some batteries could be replenished like fuel, and the battery would continue making electricity.  Great, you have just fueled a battery cell, but all you have done is just to move the process of recharging an equivalent amount of the cell’s chemicals to some other location instead of later inside a standard rechargeable, unfueled, battery cell.

   Even the promoters of hydrogen for fueling cars expect it to take 10 to 50 years, and it will take massive subsidies both public and private, according to the front page of the March 7, 2003 Wall Street Journal.  Even if we had the massive hydrogen manufacturing and distribution infrastructure a hydrogen economy would still need a clean source of energy to release the hydrogen from compounds like water where it is found.  Ideally a clean energy source like sunlight would provide all the energy to make the hydrogen, but there is not time for such a huge effort!  When we discover a clean practical energy source why risk the US budget betting that we need to fuss with hydrogen as the link like a wire (or “HyWire”) or large storage battery to get it from that nice source to where it is used?

   Fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles already make a practical linkage from the their fuel to their application.  Hybrids are bought with an efficient linkage included – no massive nation-wide hydrogen infrastructure subsidies are required first.  Hybrid cars use a small battery to assist their electric motors for brief peak performance periods.  Gasoline or diesel generators on board almost constantly recharge the batteries and/or run the vehicle.  It is unwise to bust the world’s budget to subsidize another way to do electric cars that is far more dangerous than the existing hybrids; just continue to improve the hybrids with more efficient and less polluting combustion engines.

   Learn the basics about how water and energy makes hydrogen and oxygen.  Fuel cells use that chemical reaction in reverse, but they are expensive to make for reliable car sized units.  Apparently fuel cell’s oversimplified water talk has caught the public’s fancy.  The “hydrogen economy” idea will look really unwise when the real big news unfolding about hydrogen is generally understood.

   Our culture’s news implies that a complex hydrogen system could be a better way (or link) for fossil fuels to empower transportation.  Water talk points like those embracing the hydrogen economy are impressive by themselves but our commercial news is being influenced by biased press releases and has not been considerate to balance the impressions they are forming that neglect the facts of life, nature and the public good.  What concerned citizens should be emphasizing is that what we really need are clean primary power sources. Otherwise, we are wasting our power efforts. Hydrogen’s promoters seem resigned that nuclear power is the only environmentally “clean” power source we have!  That may change if we have a fresh nuclear plant meltdown like the one that ruined central Russia.  Essential facilities are not being built fast enough to keep up with the growing demand for electrical power especially in other parts of the world.  We haven’t even been maintaining some existing power lines.  Worse, nuclear power stations take longer to build and cost far more than fossil fueled plants.  It will take a lot of additional facilities if we decide to recharge vehicles run by batteries, or on the larger scale equivalent, make the hydrogen for any significant number of hydrogen fueled battery cells by the electrolysis of water or hydrocarbon “reformation.”

    So, we must complete Mankind’s galactic conquest and bring the best category of a star’s natural energy processes to earth.  Nuclear power duplicates some of the processes that are likely inside the sun (our star) but we get about 40% of our heat from the invisible outer corona of the sun, which is shockingly hundreds of times hotter than the bright white “surface” below it.  The power process in the sun’s corona has been a major scientific mystery, until now.

    Few are aware of the astonishingly significant progress that has been made to duplicate the sun’s corona’s energy process here on earth.  The sun’s corona uses a safe chemical reaction that generates a huge amount of heat and light (mostly invisible “black” light) from just a little bit of hydrogen.  It is almost atomic fusion energy in the sense that so much power is unleashed from such a tiny amount of raw material.  Hydrogen is the fuel for this sun-like corona power generating reaction.  The corona reaction is not atomic fusion or like a nuclear power station’s fission of uranium.  The corona’s ultraviolet or black light process does not involve dangerous nuclear radioactivity at any step because it is an unsuspected kind of non–nuclear chemical reaction called the “Blacklight Process”.  Study it at  Download a free 979-page Grand Unified Theory book completely covering the 12-year-old discovery’s math. Also read others’ deep questions and get some answers, like I have, because professionals have been discussing this revolutionary theory at  for years.  The genius Blacklight Process inventor, Randell Mills, who has topped Einstein’s math, is a 1986 Harvard MD.  After years of basic research and simplification of the process, his team is about to sell a water fueled home furnace!  It will be like the rediscovery of fire!  We will be coming out of the second Stone Age when we cope with this unlimited free energy from water.

   Rowan University, which has about nine thousand in attendance, in Glassboro New Jersey published their success at operating a rocket engine fueled by ordinary water vapor using the “Blacklight Process” in December 2002.  NASA funded Rowan’s demonstration, read about it at the  The Blacklight Process can get light and millions of degrees of heat out of water vapor.  Water heated into a “plasma” state will “dissociate” or separate its molecules into constituent hydrogen and oxygen atoms and ions that can then interact in a modest vacuum (no air), see  In the Blacklight Process the hot oxygen ions act as a catalyst or enabling substance to absorb the quantum energy from hydrogen’s electron orbit and then radiate that energy as heat and light.  Over 12 years, 26 independent labs have established that this process is for real.  The significance of this free energy will shock the public and commerce.  I have been following the progress via the professional chat at  I have read about 5,000 chats, 50/50: pro & con.  I am pro.

   So forget about a so-called hydrogen economy.  A hydrogen system is as silly as using batteries when you can have the source: Blacklight Power with water vapors as fuel.  Meanwhile, we just need to retrofit all the existing vehicles with overlooked techniques that increase their efficiency and permit compatibility with the blacklight process.     END                                            lynnferd at 4-10-03


     Links: How Hydrogen Can Save America [I disagree]

     To understand General Motors future HyWire see


&     &     &     &    &    &    &   &   &  &  &  &&&&&  &  &  &  &   &   &    &    &    &    &     &

DOE Warms to Cold Fusion  by Toni Feder in Physics Today  [This is on my ]


 Whether outraged or supportive about DOE's planned reevaluation of cold fusion, most scientists remain deeply skeptical that it's real.


Hot air?  

The cold fusion claims made in 1989 by B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann didn't hold up. But they did spawn a small and devoted coterie of researchers who continue to investigate the alleged effect. Cold fusion die-hards say their data from the intervening 15 years merit a reevaluation-- and a place at the table with mainstream science. Now they have the ear of the US Department of Energy.


"I have committed to doing a review" of cold fusion, says James Decker, deputy director of DOE's Office of Science. Late last year, he says, "some scientists came and talked to me and asked if we would do some kind of review on the research that has been done" since DOE's energy research advisory board (ERAB) looked at cold fusion nearly 15 years ago. "There may be some interesting science here," Decker says. "Whether or not it has applications to the energy business is clearly unknown at this point, but you need to sort out the science before you think about applications."


DOE is still working out the details, Decker says, but a review of cold fusion will begin in the next month or so and "won't take a long time--it's a matter of weeks or months."


Turning up the heat   

Last summer, after the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion in Cambridge, Massachusetts, participants came away energized, says the conference's organizer, MIT theorist Peter Hagelstein. About 150 people attended the conference; the number of people working on cold fusion or, as some of them prefer to call it, low- energy nuclear reactions, is perhaps several hundred worldwide, most of them outside the US. Says Hagelstein, "Everyone was convinced things would start changing. The question on the table is, Can we establish to the satisfaction of the scientific community that there is science here?"


"The field has made a huge amount of progress," Hagelstein says. "In 1989, it was not clear if there was an excess heat effect or not. Over the years, it's become clear there is one. It wasn't clear if there was a low-level emission of nuclear products. Over the years it's become clear that, yes, there is. In addition, other new effects have surfaced."


"It's either my good luck or my bad luck, but I discovered there was something worthy of pursuit," says Michael McKubre, an electrochemist at SRI International, a nonprofit research institute in Menlo Park, California. McKubre's experiments are along the lines of Pons and Fleischmann's. A typical setup consists of a palladium cathode at the center of a helical platinum anode in a solution of heavy water with lithium salt. An applied current dissociates the deuterium, and deuterons load into the palladium. Experiments take a couple of weeks and "leaving them to sit is where most of the tricks are," says McKubre. Among the tricks, he says, are loading the palladium with sufficient concentrations of deuterons and increasing the signal-to-noise ratio in heat and helium measurements. "The numbers are what you expect for two deuterons fusing to produce helium-4, with about 24 MeV per helium nucleus. There is a nuclear effect that produces useful levels of heat. I know it's true."


"With knowledge comes responsibility," continues McKubre. "We know that this has economic implications and, potentially, security implications. The main application that cold fusion enthusiasts foresee following from their work is a clean source of energy; transmutation of nuclear waste and tritium production to augment weapons are also on their list. But, says McKubre, to solve "the various problems in scaling up the effect to make it more easily studied and potentially useful, we have to involve the scientific community."


As it is, the scientific community generally shuns cold fusion. "There is pretty much no possibility for funding in the area at this time, and no possibility of getting published," says Hagelstein. "Because the area is tainted, colleagues don't want to be seen talking about it." Adds Randall Hekman, a former judge and founder of Hekman Industries, an energy exploration company in Grand Rapids, Michigan, "There seems to be a scientific McCarthyism that puts a chilling effect on anyone who gets into this field. I feel for the scientists who do this work and who are being ostracized. That's got to change."


Change is exactly what cold fusion researchers hope will follow from the DOE review: They want vindication, funding, and, with those, better chances of developing applications of cold fusion. Says Hagelstein, "If the review is done properly, it should come back with a thumbs up."


A long shot   

Among scientists, skepticism about the credibility and reproducibility of cold fusion remains widespread. "Nobody is smart enough to say it is absolutely impossible, but extraordinary claims demand a very high standard of proof," says Steven Koonin, who recently took a leave from Caltech to become chief scientist at the London-based energy company BP and who served on the original ERAB panel. The best route to respectability, he says, would be for cold fusion researchers to publish in respected refereed journals. "I think a review is a waste of time," says Princeton University physicist Will Happer, another member of the earlier ERAB panel and former head of DOE's Office of Energy Research (now the Office of Science). "But if you put together a credible committee, you can try to put the issue to bed for some time. It will come back. The believers never stop believing."


And the skeptics are raising their eyebrows at DOE because of the appearance of political favors in setting up the meeting between Decker and cold fusion researchers. According to Hekman, "I am from Michigan. [Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham] is from Michigan. I know him. That opened the door." But, he adds, "we had to jump through hoops. We had to make a prima facie case first before any meeting would be set." Another Michigan connection is representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), a physicist by training, who says that he is "personally very skeptical" about cold fusion, but "it's likely time for a new review because there is enough work going on and some of the scientists in the arena are from respected institutions." Ehlers says that although he made an inquiry to DOE about a cold fusion review, "there was no political pressure."


Some scientists, too, are sympathetic to the cold fusion cause. "There are quite a few people who are putting their time into this. They are working under conditions that are bad for their careers. They think they are doing something that may result in some important new finding," says MIT's Mildred Dresselhaus, an ERAB panel veteran and former head of DOE's Office of Science. "I think scientists should be open minded. Historically, many things get overturned with time." Noting that DOE's science budget has not increased in years, she adds, "When you feel poor, you don't invest in long shots. This is kind of a long shot."


"The critical question is, How good and different are [the cold fusion researchers'] new results?" says Allen Bard, a chemist at the University of Texas at Austin. "If they are saying, 'We are now able to reproduce our results,' that's not good enough. But if they are saying, 'We are getting 10 times as much heat out now, and we understand things,' that would be interesting. I don't see anything wrong with giving these people a new hearing." In ERAB's cold fusion review in 1989, he adds, "there were phenomena described to us where you could not offer alternative, more reasonable explanations. You could not explain it away like UFOs."       


Above in Physics Today by Toni Feder


&     &     &     &    &    &    &   &   &  &  &  &&&&&  &  &  &  &   &   &    &    &    &    &     &


Press Release NEW ENERGY FOUNDATION  -CONCORD, NH  March 20, 2004     page 1 of 2

U.S. Department of Energy Will Review 15 Years of "Cold Fusion" Excess Heat and Nuclear Evidence via lynnferd at 6-4-04 

[This is on my]


    Exciting news that has circulated for about a month in the low-energy nuclear reactions field (LENR, a.k.a. "cold fusion") has now been confirmed. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has agreed to perform a review of the entire "cold fusion" (LENR) question. The DOE has made a startling reversal of its past refusal to evaluate with a fresh look the large body of experimental evidence that now supports highly anomalous non-chemical magnitude excess heat phenomena in some hydrogen systems, plus associated nuclear anomalies. The details of how the review will be conducted and when it is to begin have not yet been released formally, but it is expected to be completed by the end of 2004.

    News of this major DOE reversal comes at a time of growing concern about present and future energy resources, as well as debate over funding for controlled thermonuclear fusion research, that is, "hot" fusion. It also comes at a time when much discussion of the "hydrogen economy" and fuel cells fills the media. LENR research suggests, by contrast, that orders-of-magnitude more powerful energy reserves are associated with hydrogen than conventionally understood chemical energy models would allow. This ought to please open-minded environmentalists and others concerned about the future of the energy-environment problem and potential impacts on the global climate.

    Just as after the the original announcements by chemists Drs. Martin Fleischmann and B. Stanley Pons at the University of Utah on March 23, 1989 and by physicist Steven E. Jones at Brigham Young University subsequently, this disclosure by the U.S. DOE is certain to prompt intense controversy and expectation. The great difference this time, however, is that a much larger body of excellent published experimental work now exists from researchers around the globe, which the DOE should be compelled to examine in its review. By right, this review should have happened a decade ago— but better late than never. In our view, the body of supporting evidence for large magnitude excess heat and nuclear products in "cold fusion" is so solid at this time that it would essentially be intellectually impossible for an objective DOE panel to come to other than a very positive conclusion about the evidence and the prospect of technological applications. Of course, it is quite possible that bureaucratic, unethical machinations will again occur that will preclude such a reasonable outcome. We hope that does not happen.

    Another difference between now and 1989: there are now operational experimental electrolytic and other excess energy cells in various laboratories in the U.S. and abroad; these are producing repeatable, verifiable excess energy that cannot possibly be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. In some cases, for example, one watt of electrical input power goes into a closed cell and an output power of 3 to 4 watts of heat occurs for a prolonged time. Much more powerful cells have also been operated. There is evidence of helium-4 and helium-3 production, tritium production, low-level neutron emissions, charged particles, light emission spectral anomalies, the formation of unusual chemical compounds, and even the transmutation of heavy elements in what seems to be a mix of fusion- and fission-like reactions. Laser radiation, ultrasonic activation, and magnetic fields, among a variety of other stimuli, have been found to enhance LENR reactions. It appears that an entirely new realm of physics and chemistry is suggested by the expanding body of experimental evidence. There are almost certainly implications for biology and medicine too. Many of the scientific papers from the LENR field and other historical materials can now be freely downloaded from the websites:  and from 

    The confirmation of the DOE review came first in a draft article by Physics Today science journalist Toni Feder. This draft was circulated to several LENR scientists, critics, and others who gave input to Ms. Feder. New Energy Foundation provided input to Ms. Feder and welcomed receipt of the draft article from her. The article is to appear in Physics Today's April 2004 issue, which should be out by the first week of April. Physics Today is published by the American Physical Society, an organization which by-and-large has not been open to the study of LENR phenomena, though it has allowed small sessions on the subject to be organized at its national meetings. In fact, the late LENR theorist, Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger, resigned from the APS in the early 1990s because the APS journals refused to publish his theories about the possible mechanisms of cold fusion.

    The first popular journal to publish the news of the impending DOE review is, however, the UK-based New Scientist. In its March 20, 2004 issue (which was received in the mail on March 20 at New Energy Foundation) freelance journalist Ben Daviss reports in a short article in the "Upfront: News in Perspective" section (p. 6), that James Decker, deputy director of the DOE's Office of Science, "has pledged to review evidence from the past 15 years of research in the controversial field." Daviss also writes, "The study could be completed by January 2005 and might open up the possibility of funding for cold fusion research projects."

    There is additional high-level scientific support for the DOE review: Former DOE Office of Science Director, Dr. Mildred Dresselhaus (an MIT Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) is quoted in the Physics Today article: "I think scientists should be open-minded. Historically, many things get overturned with time." Prof. Dresselhaus was on the original ERAB (Energy Research Advisory Board) Cold Fusion Panel in 1989, which rendered a highly negative and very premature report on November 1, 1989. Though over the years she has not been one of the highly antagonistic critics of LENR with which that panel was packed, she did not assist approaches to the DOE for LENR reconsideration, during her brief position at the DOE in the Clinton Administration years. This is a welcome turn-around for MIT Prof. Dresselhaus, for which we commend her.

    The initiative that helped launch the impending review was a letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham from MIT Professor Peter Hagelstein, a cold fusion theorist since 1989. Prof. Hagelstein chaired ICCF10, the Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion, which was held in Cambridge, MA and in part at MIT, August 24-29, 2003. Solid demonstrations of excess power in electrolytic cells were exhibited on the MIT campus by two scientific groups. It was shortly after ICCF10 that Prof. Hagelstein wrote to Spencer Abraham. New Energy Foundation's magazine, Infinite Energy, published Hagelstein's letter in its November/December 2003 issue (Vol.9, #52, p. 46).

    Prof. Hagelstein told the U.S. Secretary of Energy that Wall Street Journal reporter Sharon Begley, who had attended ICCF10 for a few days, concluded in her "Science Journal" column of September 5, 2003, "that perhaps most problematic about the conference was not what was presented and discussed at the conference, but the lack of interest on the part of the scientific community." The Begley column was titled: "Cold Fusion Isn't Dead, It's Just Withering from Scientific Neglect." The door to the DOE was evidently further opened by Randall Hekman, who is an MIT graduate (1969), a former judge, and an energy entrepreneur (Hekman Industries). Hekman knows Spencer Abraham and Republican Congressman Vern Ehlers from Michigan, who is a physicist. Ehlers is quoted in the Physics Today article that it is time for a new review "because there is enough work going on and some of the scientists in the area are from respected institutions."

    One potential minefield for an honest review of the LENR evidence, apart from the bias and well-known hostility of the pathological skeptics, is the raising of the straw man of the alleged "requirement" for comprehensive microphysical explanation of LENR phenomena before the experimental data can be accepted. That is a well-known anti-scientific tactic that the pathological skeptics have employed for years. There have been many proposed theories to explain the evidence— both the excess heat and the nuclear products— but no single theory appears yet to encompass all the evidence. That is not an unusual condition on the frontiers of physics and science in general, which the critics pretend to forget. So, our strongest advice for a fundamental ground rule for the DOE review is that the review should focus primarily on determining this key finding: the validity of the evidence for non-chemical magnitude excess heat and nuclear anomalies— as well as any other physical anomalies associated with the systems, such as anomalies in light emission. Involved judgments about how the verified phenomena operate should be reserved for the future.

    In May 1991, Eugene Mallove, president of the New Energy Foundation, wrote in Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor (John Wiley & Sons):

    After reviewing mounting evidence from cold fusion experiments, I am persuaded that it provides a compelling indication that a new kind of nuclear process is at work. I would say that the evidence is overwhelmingly compelling that cold fusion is a real, new nuclear process capable of significant excess power generation. . .There is yet no proved nuclear explanation for the excess heat. That excess heat exists is amply proved. (From the Preface, p. xv)

    This conclusion of 1991, in the first book in the world which presented a positive evaluation of the discovery, was based on already very, very solid evidence. Now the DOE review panel has much more evidence to back up that same conclusion. It remains valid in 2004 as it was in 1991. Another excellent book, which reviews the entire cold fusion saga, is by MIT-trained engineer Charles Beaudette (MIT 1952), Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed (2002 edition, available in the on-line store).

    Furthermore, it is the view of the New Energy Foundation (perhaps not shared by many in the LENR field) that the DOE review as part of its task should examine other significant New Energy-related research that has been published, beyond what is ordinarily confined within the LENR field ( ). This research is almost certain to shed significant light on what has been found within LENR proper. In particular, there are three primary websites where such closely-related technical information and can be obtained:

                  (New Energy Foundation, Inc.)

         (BlackLight Power Corporation)

         (Labofex and Aurora Biophysics Research Institute)

    As an additional assist to the prospective DOE review, a Memorandum to the White House from New Energy Foundation president Eugene Mallove (requested by President Clinton's staff in February 2000, following the urging of our supporter Sir Arthur C. Clarke) has been posted at . Review panelists and concerned citizens should examine this document. It provides a concise historical and technical overview of the scientific problem of energy from water, titled "The Strange Birth of the Water Fuel Age." Unfortunately, neither the Clinton Administration nor the present Bush Administration acted on the suggestions of this Memorandum, until the present impending review, which was separately prompted by Professor Hagelstein's letter. We sincerely praise U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham for facilitating this landmark decision to launch a review.

    Concerned citizens (and especially MIT graduates) should also examine the 55-page report about the events at MIT in the early days of the cold fusion controversy— a downloadable pdf-file at .

    As a final note: Though we very much appreciate that the DOE will be carrying out a review of the LENR evidence, we do not need the DOE's imprint and approval to realize that we are dealing with a critical frontier of scientific and technological research that has been validated long ago. Funding for New Energy research is needed now, not in nine or ten months! The DOE review is in some sense at best a corrective to a severe "political problem" that has occurred within the house of official science and in mainstream scientific publication. Therefore, we urge readers of this message to consider charitable contributions to the New Energy Foundation (a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation). These contributions already have made possible scientific research grants to New Energy investigators— especially within LENR, as well as ongoing scientific publication efforts: books, magazines, video tapes, DVDs, etc. For example, New Energy Foundation helped fund the ICCF10 conference in Cambridge, MA last August, which helped lead to the DOE review breakthrough. ICCF11, which will be in Marseilles, France October 31-November 5, 2004 ( ) is also in need of financial support from the New Energy Foundation.

    -New Energy Foundation P.O. Box 2816 Connccord, NH 03302-2816 Phone: 603-485-4700 Fax: 603-485-4710



End page 2 of 2   via lynnferd at 6-4-04


&     &     &     &    &    &    &   &   &  &  &  &&&&&  &  &  &  &   &   &    &    &    &    &     &


Oil's Future: Ready or Not, Here It Comes

Report of the Danish Board of Technology and the Society of Danish Engineers on the future of oil production*

Published by EV World  June 5, 2004    

['s_future.htm ]  [Underlining by lynnferd at See my ]


Here's a scenario only a government bureaucrat could love.

Oil demand continues to increase at 2% a year for the next thirty years, assuring vibrant economic growth, while new petroleum reserves are discovered and recovery techniques continue to improve, but not at a rate sufficient to keep up with global demand. At sometime around 2037, however, the world drops over the precipitous point of the demand curve, as oil production plummets and there are inadequate viable substitutes for the world's addiction to petroleum. Society and life on the other side of the curve will be exciting, to say the least.


That's the assessment of the Danish Board of Technology and the Society of Danish Engineers who recently authored Oil-based Technology and Economy - Prospects for the Future*, if we assume the projections of the U.S. Geologic Survey and the DOE's Energy Information Administration [EIA}(2000) are accurate. (See the chart on page 92). The plunge occurs sooner if you take the "pessimistic" view.


We can argue all day long about when demand will exceed production, but even the most optimistic projections say sometime in the first half of this century, we're going to slam into the wall of oil depletion. Pick your year: 2005, 2015, 2037. Perhaps sooner, rather than later, we're going to have to find practical substitutes for oil.  [2005!]


But as the Danes warn, "As long as oil is cheap... new technologies will not be introduced on the market. Therefore, when the peak occurs, there will be no production lines ready to supply such new technologies. Money for these investments will have to raised at a time of economic recession."


So, in an sadly ironic way, the war on terror and invasion of Iraq, may be doing the world -- if not the 15,000 Iraqis who have died, as well as the dead and maimed from the coalition forces -- a favor by driving up the price of a barrel of oil. Granted, it's a temporary, if huge windfall for low-margin producers like Saudi Arabia, but it also helps stimulate the demand for greater efficiency and conservation at home, as well as help make investments in off-shore wells and natural gas-pipelines more appealing.


What I found refreshing about the 112-page Danish report*, published in March, 2004 is its even-handed view of the issues arising out the eventual reality of the oil peak, as well as the various conflicting theories and personalities associated with the debate. While they question the assumptions of "pessimists" (I prefer the term, pragmatist) like Dr. Colin Campbell, they also find optimistic [DOE’s Energy Information Administration] EIA projections lacking in logic and, therefore, unrealistic.


They write in their preface, "Any prediction of future demand and production is counterfactual and, therefore, uncertain. However, the functioning of modern societies is so heavily dependent on oil-based technologies and, therefore, on the supply of oil that governments must gain qualified information about the past and the probably future development of reserves and production capacities in order to assess the number of years that may be available for the substitution of oil-based technologies before the decline in the supply of oil sets in.


"No conclusions are drawn in this review, " they note. "However, it is found that the evidence provided from public domain sources, upon which this review is based, warrants the scrupulous and politically unbiased assessment of the opportunities to balance global oil demand and oil production capacity in the next decades and the consequences of a decline in oil production capacity for economies in the affluent countries and economic development in the poor regions."


The Preface issues the following summary.

"The evidence presented in this review shows that forecasts made by governmental and international institutions differ markedly from the results of analyses made by individual, independent researchers and some analysts representing the oil industry. The oil industry's analysts point to ever greater costs of matching growing demand with supply from an aging resource base.


"Depending mainly on developments in the Middle East and the development of the world economy in the coming years, production may peak within one or two decades. It is a question of geology, technology, economy, and the policies conducted by various nations. The trouble is that no realistic technological economic and political strategies for the warding off of the impacts of a decline in conventional oil supply are in sight."          [ Above is's_future.htm      


 *112 pp Danish report: Oil-based Technology and Economy - Prospects for the Future


&     &     &     &    &    &    &   &   &  &  &  &&&&&  &  &  &  &   &   &    &    &    &    &     &


BBC last updated 4/19/04 Amid

When the last oil well runs dry

By Alex Kirby BBC environment correspondent  says:


 In May 2003 the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (Aspo), founded by Colin Campbell, held a workshop on oil depletion in Paris.  One of the speakers was an investment banker, Matthew Simmons, a former adviser to President Bush's administration.  From The Wilderness Publications reported him as saying: "Any serious analysis now shows solid evidence that the non-FSU [former Soviet Union], non-Opec [Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries] oil has certainly petered out and has probably peaked...    No cheap oil, no cheap food  "I think basically that peaking of oil will never be accurately predicted until after the fact. But the event will occur, and my analysis is... that peaking is at hand, not years away.  "If I'm right, the unforeseen consequences are devastating... If the world's oil supply does peak, the world's issues start to look very different.  "There really aren't any good energy solutions for bridges, to buy some time, from oil and gas to the alternatives. The only alternative right now is to shrink our economies."  


 &     &     &     &    &    &    &   &   &  &  &  &&&&&  &  &  &  &   &   &    &    &    &    &     &


BBC: Is the world's oil running out fast? [Yes!]

6-7-04  By Adam Porter at the Peak Oil conference in Berlin