haram

What if some other form from Burgess Shale fauna prevailed? Too much speculative question for scientific exactivity. But it is free to dreaming.

You meant -marketed, like hot fusion is? Or hot fusion isn't feasible reality also -because it isn't yet marketed? How something could become marketed before it is examined and developed? How did fission was marketed? Would be fission power plants marketed at all besides fossil fuels industry, if research weren't strongly boosted by military at the WW2 and beginning of arms race? That's a completely false logic. As a matter of the fact, it was on the news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTvaX3vRtRA http://phys.org/news/2010-03-cold-fusion-closer-mainstream.html and mr.Gates have some plans for marketing: http://www.kitco.com/ind/Albrecht/2014-12-23-Bill-Gates-Sponsoring-Palladium-Based-LENR-Technology.html Maybe somebody else will (or allready did) provide theorethical explanation, after all she is not a physicist, she was just conducted an experiment based on previous CF research… what about Julian Schwinger's explanations? Peter Hagelstein's, Mitchell Swartz's? And, since when results of experiments requires theorethical confirmations at a first place, shouldn't be vice-versa? Well, i have one cute anegdote too: do you know how oil business started? William „Doc“ Rockefeller Sr. was seller of „snake oil universal elixir“ –essentially it was crude oil. I'm not believe in CF at all. I'm believe that in link below are serious scientific works made by serious scientists: http://world.std.com/~mica/nanorrefs.html and only other works of other scientists could discard it. So, is Dr. Pamela Mosier-Boss (and her staff) unqualified to detect neutrons, X-rays, tritium, and excess heat, in their SPAWAR laboratory? Are nuclear physicists qualified to conduct some CF experiments? http://world.std.com/~mica/nanortechnology.htm https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IEEE-brief-DeChiaro-9-2015-pdf/ At least somebody here admits that official research team from one of top-ranking government scientific institutions in charge for military tech development of world's most advanced superpower have some authority to measure input and output energy from some laboratory device. But no, you miss whole picture too; i'm referenced not on their authority, but on their conducted experiment. ***** NASA about LENR: LENR is a type of nuclear energy based on the weak force. It has similar characteristics to fission and fusion, except there is no harmful radiation or hazardous waste. As an energy source, LENR works by generating heat in a catalyst process. The fuels or materials that are usually used in the LENR process are nickel metal (Ni) with hydrogen gas (H) or palladium (Pd) with deuterium (D). The initial testing and theory show that radiation and radioisotopes are extremely short lived and can be easily shielded. LENR would be an ideal energetics solution. It could meet the world’s energy requirements while being cleaner and safer than current methods. NASA’s interest in LENR increased after the Widom-Larsen Theory was published. NASA began conducting experiments to determine how the LENR surface reactions occur and their characteristics. One appealing application for LENR previously identified by NASA is single-stage-to-orbit vehicles. LENR’s high energy density would be a huge advantage for these types of vehicles. NASA conducted a study in 2009 to design a LENR powered launch vehicle. LENR enabled very high performance engines that could revolutionize access to space. https://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Wells_TM2014-218283%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reaction%20Aircraft.pdf ***** NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 R E P O R T OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 4909 together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] MAY 4, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed (... page 87 ...) ... Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Briefing The committee is aware of recent positive developments in developing low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), which produce ultraclean, low-cost renewable energy that have strong national security implications. For example, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), if LENR works it will be a ‘‘disruptive technology that could revolutionize energy production and storage.’’ The committee is also aware of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency’s (DARPA) findings that other countries including China and India are moving forward with LENR programs of their own and that Japan has actually created its own investment fund to promote such technology. DIA has also assessed that Japan and Italy are leaders in the field and that Russia, China, Israel, and India are now devoting significant resources to LENR development. To better understand the national security implications of these developments, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing on the military utility of recent U.S. industrial base LENR advancements to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 22, 2016. This briefing should examine the current state of research in the United States, how that compares to work being done internationally, and an assessment of the type of military applications where this technology could potentially be useful. ... https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt537/CRPT-114hrpt537.pdf - sounds pretty much like official confirmation to me. ***** Interesting interview with Bo Höistad, Professor at Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics, Uppsala University, Sweden http://katalog.uu.se/profile/?id=XX1060 transcript: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/13/transcript-of-radio-interview-with-bo-hoistad-on-the-lugano-e-cat-test-we-want-lenr-fusione-fredda/ This auto-arranging of posts is incredibly annoying.

So you call, for instance, Dr. Pamela Mosier-Boss, an analytical chemist at the U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems, employed at the Navy lab for 28 years, holder of degrees in biology and chemistry from Kent State University and a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry from Michigan State University in 1985., person which is, in addition to more than 30 peer-reviewed papers related to LENR, also widely published in other fields with an additional 30+ peer-reviewed papers, and if you count peer-reviewed papers, conference proceedings and book chapters, -it’s over 160 in total, and which holds more patents than any other woman in the history of the lab (at 16 with 5 more pending), and her co-workers on study -that report was presented at the American Chemical Society's 237th National Meeting, among 30 papers on the topic that was presented during a four-day symposium, "New Energy Technology," March 22-25 2009., in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion - "a crackpot/con artist trying to suggest overwhelming proof."?? http://phys.org/news/2009-03-cold-fusion-rebirth-evidence-controversial.html https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323110450.htm That's funny. "They cited other evidence for nuclear reactions including X-rays, tritium (another form of hydrogen), and excess heat. Meanwhile, Mosier-Boss and colleagues are continuing to explore the phenomenon to get a better understanding of exactly how LENR works, which is key to being able to control it for practical purposes. Mosier-Boss points out that the field currently gets very little funding and, despite its promise, researchers can't predict when, or if, LENR may emerge from the lab with practical applications. The U.S. Department of the Navy and JWK International Corporation in Annandale, Va., funded the study. Source: American Chemical Society" http://phys.org/news/2009-03-cold-fusion-rebirth-evidence-controversial.html - So that is 2004 U.S. Department of Energy Cold Fusion Review & Reviewer Comments. - That is another review, published in Current Science in February 2015.: "Review of materials science for studying the Fleischmann and Pons effect" V. Violante 1, E. Castagna 1, S. Lecci 1, F. Sarto 1, M. Sansovini 1, A. Torre 1, A. La Gatta 2, R. Duncan 3, G. Hubler 4, A. El Boher 4, O. Aziz 4, D. Pease 4, D. Knies 5, M. McKubre 6 Affiliations 1 ENEA Research Center, via E. Fermi 45, 00044 Frascati (Rome), Italy 2 Consorzio Veneto Ricerca-TSEM, Padova, Italy 3 Texas Tech University, Lubbok, TX, United States 4 University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, United States 5 Coolescence LLC, Boulder, CO, United States 6 SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, United States http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Review-of-materials-science-for-studying-the-Fleischmann-and-Pons-effect.pdf And as for conspiracy theories, one picture is worth of thousands words: http://sfcitizen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/CondoleezaRiceOilTanker2.jpg

But, after more over 20 years of overwhelming experimental confirmations, there are scientifically valid conclusive proofs that breaks stigmatic barrier of "pathological/junk science" which surrounds that field from the very beginning. http://phys.org/news/2010-03-cold-fusion-closer-mainstream.html - conclusions from the one of presentations on CF colloquium on CERN, 22.Mar. 2012.: Need for an International Research Program • Apart from the Rossi and/or Defkalion claims (in principle very interesting but never, up to now, independently reconfirmed by third parts), the quality of experiments worldwide performed is so high and the results obtained so widespread/reproduced, that I (Francesco Celani) believe it is the time to start an International Research Program to boost the results. • This Program, well funded and based on multidisciplinary approach, shall have the objective to design and test “working devices” able to generate heat and, later on, electricity. • Clearly, this Program shall not stop the research on the theory side, aimed to define a general theoretical architecture of the whole phenomena we are discussing today. • If successful, this Program should also launch an economic and industrial roadmap to define the guidelines of future investment and regulations. http://indico.cern.ch/event/177379/attachments/231603/324018/CERN220212_2203.pdf Influential state-owned organisations just can't ignore facts anymore, and should support further researches (as supports hot fusion), instead of leaving matter of that importance to growing mass of suspicious entrepreneurs and diletants. Thank's on so fast review. Does that meant there is a significant uncertainty in functionality of both devices? "ps. Actually I showed these calcs in OpenOffice in post #24 http://www.sciencefo...split/?p=810423" - So, Rossi's device actually may be real, but without hes understanding of basic principles?

Wow! Sensei truly you are! So, would you be interested to spend some time to examine and shortly comment these experiments: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/206-tgoc ... and, perhaps, look at those videos and tell us your opinion about their validity? And here are some more old news about presentations of CF/LENR related experiments: http://coldfusion3.com/blog/major-lenr-demonstrations-held

- Here is the November 26. 1989. report from Energy Research Advisory Bord to the US Department of Energy - "diligent work during the last six months“ based on single failed replication experiment. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ERABreportofth.pdf - Schwinger's theoretical preliminary works on that matter was discarded on grounds unfitting established theories, without peer-review method applied. - Various independent labs and teams from France, Italy, Israel, India, China, Japan... are reporting about experiments confirming F&P's, for more over twenty years. - Last two decades are proposed numerous theories as explanations, by prominent physicists. It is possible to all that experts in world-spread laboratories that confirming F&P experiment are measuring wrong calorimetryc output too, during 25 years of experimentation, but it is highly unlikely. And to establish consistent experimental conditions it is essential to describe consistent physical theory –and in case of CF/LENR it is to many of them proposed. And those scientists who take close look at CF experiments today, after skepticism turns up to proponents of that matter -for instance Peter L. Hagelstein http://www.rle.mit.edu/people/directory/peter-hagelstein/ ... or Robert Duncan, which is called as independent investigator from The American Physical Society (same that Schwinger left in protest) to examine work in Israel lab. (Duncan appears in about 7:30)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Duncan_(physicist) - and it's clearly that, among others, scientists at NASA and DARPA are convinced in reality of that reaction. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160000347.pdf http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/IPAG12_Presentation.pdf http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/darpa-nanotech-projects-nanoscale.html http://www.lenrnews.eu/dod-darpa-and-cold-fusionlenr-are-they-watching-or-trying-to-save-usa-industry/ https://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/m/35303 - as for CERN and CF: Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) "An overview will be given on the main progress made –since March 1989- through experimental/theoretical studies on thermal/nuclear anomalies observed in forced interactions of Hydrogen isotopes (H, D), in non-equilibrium conditions, with pure or alloyed materials (mainly Palladium, Nickel). Most of the experiments used electrolytic environments at moderate temperatures (20-50°C). More recently, gas environments have been used at higher temperatures (between 200-400°C and even temperatures between 500-900°C have been employed). Specific nanostructures have begun to play a crucial role both in basic studies as well as in, recently claimed, technological/industrial applications. A plethora of theoretical models have been proposed to explain several experimental anomalies in LENR. A brief description of a weak interaction model shall be presented that claims to explain almost ALL of the anomalous effects found so far." http://indico.cern.ch/event/177379/ After all, sounds pretty much as scientific confirmation to me.

Generally, agreed with that principles again, but... how that matter could get wider academics attention, when is from very beginning stigmatized as a quack/pathological/pseudo science, reputable peer-review magazines (as Nature) refusing to publish any works about it, and patent offices (in US) don't giving any grants? Pons and Fleishman, two prominent and experienced electrochemists, was simply humiliated in front of American Physical Society comity: "Top physicists directed angry attacks at Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann, calling them incompetent, reciting sarcastic verses about their claims and complaining that they had refused to provide details needed for follow-up experiments... ... Dr. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann." The audience of scientists sat in stunned silence for a moment before bursting into applause... ... Dr. Jones (who was parallely committed similar experiment) himself spoke at the meeting, and although participants questioned him sharply about his experiment, questioning was generally friendly. He drew cheers and laughter when he concluded his talk by saying, "Is this a shortcut to fusion energy? Read my lips: No!" He defended his own experiment, describing his results as a "fragile flower" that would never grow into a "tree" producing useful energy, but could nevertheless "beautify" science... In a telephone interview, Dr. James Brophy, director of research at the University of Utah, responded, "It is difficult to believe that after five years of experiments Dr. Pons and Dr. Fleischmann could have made some of the errors I've heard have been alleged at the American Physical Society meeting." http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html (an article from May 3, 1989) After resigning his membership from the American Physical Society, Schwinger (who had been a leading member for over 50 years), explained his act: "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science." http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0303/0303078.pdf (the spokesman for the American Physics Society brags that he has never read a single experimental paper on cold fusion but he knows it must be wrong) McKubre verified plenty experiments from various independent laboratories around a world which claimed that proved reaction, but bulk of US scientific community simply ignored that. And it's not easy to reproduce CF experiment: "The first challenge is to get the cell to produce energy, and to be sure that the energy is real. In early replications, the experiment was performed very much the way Pons and Fleischmann did it. That was not good enough. Many other variations were called for, using entirely different instruments and techniques. Other kinds of nuclear evidence had to be confirmed. Pons and Fleischmann had only $100,000, barely enough to do a rudimentary experiment with simple instruments, looking for a few signs of a nuclear reaction. If everyone had performed the same experiment using the same type calorimeter they used, researchers would not have learned much more than Pons and Fleischmann already knew. What is worse, it is conceivable that dozens of scientists worldwide might all make the same systematic error. To ensure against this remote possibility, in the years following the announcement, many different instrument types were employed. Heat measurement, for example, was first performed using single-wall isoperibolic calorimeters. Later, many errors were removed by using the double-wall type. Mass flow calorimeters and a variety of electronic Seebeck calorimeters were also used. Sometimes these techniques were used simultaneously; heat from the same sample was measured with different methods. Although many experiments produce only marginal heat, or no heat, every type of instrument has seen examples of strong positive results, or what is called a large signal-to-noise ratio. The same principle applies to the measurement of nuclear effects. Autoradiographs with ordinary X-ray film often show that a cathode has become mildly radioactive during an experiment. But suppose the sealed film is somehow affected by the minute quantity of deuterium gas escaping from the cathode? Very well, devise a plastic holder that keeps the film a millimeter away from the metal surface, and put the cathode and the film together into a vacuum chamber, so the outgasing hydrogen never reaches the sealed X-ray film. When that works, try again with an electronic detector. The outgasing deuterium cannot have the same effect with all three methods, yet the shadow of radioactivity from the hot spots in the cathode surface shows up every time. Every conventional type of spectrometer has been harnessed to detect tritium and metal transmutations, time after time, in experiment after experiment. A researcher will examine a specimen with SIMS, EPMA and EDX spectroscopy, to be sure he sees the same isotope shifts with different instruments. He will probably examine the specimen before and after the experiment, and compare it to an unused sample. This is the cheap and easy technique, but researchers at Mitsubishi were not satisfied with it. They developed highly sensitive on-line spectroscopy that takes data as the reaction is occurring. Such equipment costs tens of millions of dollars, but the results are highly reliable, and they tell us far more about the nature of the reaction than static results taken after the nuclear process has ceased. For the past six years Mitsubishi has been able to perform the experiments several times per year, with complete success each time. They observe excess heat, transmutations and gamma rays. Dozens of parameters can be changed in a cold fusion experiment, but only one reliably predicts the outcome: the metallurgical and physical characteristics of the active material. For example, researchers at the National Cold Fusion Institute in Utah did twenty different types of experiment. In the final and best version, they achieved 100 percent reproducible tritium production, proof that an unusual nuclear reaction had occurred. Four out of four heavy water experiments produced significant tritium, while none of the light water controls did. The final report said, "tritium enhancements up to a factor of 52 were observed," meaning there was 52 times more than the minimum amount their instruments could detect. In these tests, 150 blank (unused) samples of palladium were tested extensively, by dissolving in acid and by other exhaustive methods. None of the blank samples had any measurable level of tritium." http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-2/Does-cold-fusion-exist.html From my laic's point of view, it is still questionable could that reaction be useful for commercial gaining energy at all, is it really cold fusion, or some new kind of chemically assisted nuclear reaction / low nuclear reaction (as Krivit claims), but it's doubtless that exists. Analogous to that, we are not certain about truly mechanism of sonoluminescence, but we have no doubts that it exists too (and Schwinger proposed theoretical connection with CF). Maybe CF/LENR/CANR is applicable, maybe even Rossi, discarding his past, have something real, maybe whole thing is just an illusion, but we will never know for certain if we don't examine it through purely scientific methods. And why that topic about new energy source was discarded in US scientific community from very beginning, I have opinion which doesn't belong on this forum, but just a hint: follow the money. Sorry, maybe this whole text is too long, but I don't know how to avoid posts fusion made by forum's engine. I agreed that UK is not the best place in the world to spread solar cells, same as the rest of central and north Europe (and yet Germany despite that has large inflow of electricity via solars), but there are some other renewable sources. After all, UK imports most of fossil fuels. Renewables could significantly lower that dependency. I'm aware of that the most of the hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels today, but it is proven that is also commercially feasible from water using electricity or heat from renewables. And could be transported bounded in ammonia same as fossil fuels are. Thank's on that, I was expected that will sound strange at least.

Forgot to mention one more important thing: as long as energy resources are unequally subventioned, or politically supported, or unfairly presented, directly or indirectly, it's pointless to talking about economical viability and cost effectiveness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels_lobby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Mafia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Energy_Institute http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/ https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/ECOFYS%202014%20Subsidies%20and%20costs%20of%20EU%20energy_11_Nov.pdf

About solar furnaces from beginning of this thread, they can have variety of applications: "USES: The rays are focused onto an area the size of a cooking pot and can reach 4,000 °C (7,230 °F), depending on the process installed, for example: about 1,000 °C (1,830 °F) for metallic receivers producing hot air for the next generation solar towers as it will be tested at the Themis plant with the Pegase project[5] about 1,400 °C (2,550 °F) to produce hydrogen by cracking methane molecules[6] up to 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) to test materials for extreme environment such as nuclear reactors or space vehicle atmospheric reentry up to 3,500 °C (6,330 °F) to produce nanomaterials by solar induced sublimation and controlled cooling, such as carbon nanotubes[7] or zinc nanoparticles[8] It has been suggested that solar furnaces could be used in space to provide energy for manufacturing purposes. Their reliance on sunny weather is a limiting factor as a source of renewable on Earth but could be tied to thermal energy storage systems* for energy production through these periods and into the night. SMALLER SCALE DEVICES The solar furnace principle is being used to make inexpensive solar cookers and solar-powered barbecues, and for solar water pasteurization. A prototype Scheffler reflector is being constructed in India for use in a solar crematorium. This 50 m² reflector will generate temperatures of 700 °C (1,292 °F) and displace 200–300 kg of firewood used per cremation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace *such are solar thermal power plants Andasol: https://www.rwe.com/web/cms/mediablob/en/1115150/data/0/1/Further-information-about-Andasol.pdf and Ivanpah: http://breakingenergy.com/2015/06/17/ivanpah-solar-production-up-170-in-2015/ and many others, experimental or commercial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_thermal_power_stations - advantage of those facilities, compared to photovoltaics, is that they can store Sun's energy in thermal form during cloudy periods or night. Tremendous power of the concentrated sunlight: Another variant, middle-sized system -solar powered Stirling engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-powered_Stirling_engine http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/stirling-engine.html Agreed. Choosing the most appropriately tec depends on many factors... for instance, in Denmark is better to harvest wind energy, in Arizona direct sunlight, in many coastal areas best choice are OTEC plants*... and that energy could be stored on several vays (mechanical, thermal, chemical...) which all can affect on effectiveness and costs. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion =============================================== There is another interesting, but not well examined idea yet. Why waiting winds to blow, why depending on their fluctuations? Why not artificially make them? It's an old idea, which was revived by a canadian inventor Louis Michaud - and Atmospheric Vortex Engine, or Tornado Power Plant, was born. The idea is to collect the heat, whether from Sun or from waste heat of some industrial facility, transform it in steady air motion, and amplify to tornado-sized controlled whirlwind. So far, smaller scaled experimental models given the proof of the concept. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/12/151204-louis-michaud-breakthrough-tornado-energy/ http://vortexengine.ca/index.shtml In fact, that is a variant of solar updraft tower/solar chimney, but without expensive and fragile tower. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE4B3YCo5Vo Also are some huge steps maked in artificial photosynthesis http://nocera.harvard.edu/SolarEnergyConversion http://newscenter.lbl.gov/tag/artificial-photosynthesis/ and using ammonia (which can be produced cheaply using renewable energy) as a fuel is an old fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia#As_a_fuel

Danish island Samsø did. "Now 100% of its electricity comes from wind power and 75% of its heat comes from solar power and biomass energy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sams%C3%B8 And it's not so far from Scotland. You have daylight too?

Agreed on that generally, but meanwhile I found that he is getting some affirmations: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/joe-eck-at-superconductorsorg-claims.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/confirmation-of-ultra-ycbo.html Also is interesting comment in first link: "It's because he looks at comparatively tiny glitches in resistance vs. temperature traces and magnetization vs temperature traces, and claims that these are due to superconductivity. There are many other transitions (structural and magnetic) that can produce such glitches, besides superconductivity. It's a *big* step with no supporting evidence to claim that a fraction of a percent change in total resistance is *really* caused by some amount of material going down to zero resistance. *If* his attribution is correct (and that's a big "if"), it means that some tiny volume fraction of his material, of unknown composition (certainly not the nominal total composition), is doing something. People would be much more interested in this work if he could actually make a macroscopic amount (in this case, even few mg would be nice) of single-phase material with well defined composition." ... and this one too: In theory, if he is producing a material with small domains of superconductivity, he should be able to take his pellets, grind them finely, and perform a magnetic separation on them in order to produce a fraction highly enriched in superconducting domains. Perhaps it's time for him to do that. Is that indicating that Ecke could be on traces of SC nevertheless?

So, does anybody check it? I'm very interested in other opinions, because according those text it seems that topic is suppressed on MIT with administrative actions rather than scientific methods. And motives are clearly financial. And because that among supporters are some highly credible persons (Nobel Prize in physics awarded Julian Schwinge, top electrochemist McKubre, senior scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center Joseph Zawodny*, and many others...), that matter deserved to be reconsidered with same scientific scrutiny as hot fusion is. *http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/ De facto we already have that; a huge free and safe fusion reactor above our heads which supplies us with by far more energy that we need at present level, and hence is no need to mess with atoms et all (although always is wisely to have some backup options). We just need to find best ways to collect that energy, which may be accomplished yet that we were invested same amount of efforts, funds and resources in artificial photosynthesis, hydrogen-based economy and some other promising renewable technologies, as we were in hot fusion researches. Sorry for out-of-topic drop, it ends here... and apology for somewhat clumsy expressions or wrong words eventually, english is not my native language (also I'm not from Italy )... hope at least meaning is clear.

During all history of life on Earth, abrupt climate changes were more devastating than asteroid impacts. At the ending of last ice age, humans were benefited, but just because we were marginal minor species, and changes were in our favor, mostly. This time is opposite case. Suddenly mild winters are maybe good for our old bones, but bad for present ecosystem that were during millenniums adjusted for harsh conditions. And no, humans can't be excluded from environment.

"Guy McPherson" sounds very much like pseudonym... anyway -he's not the only one with such approximations http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists http://news.berkeley.edu/2012/06/06/scientists-uncover-evidence-of-impending-tipping-point-for-earth/ https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2015/07/scientists-warn-ocean-near-tipping-point http://www.alternet.org/environment/global-warming-tipping-points-could-trigger-natural-disasters-scientists-warn http://www.techtimes.com/articles/96583/20151020/scientists-discover-41-global-warming-tipping-points-that-could-trigger-natural-disaster.htm etc... No matter within few decades or centuries, exponential accumulation of diverse environmental and social problems will hit us all hard, no doubt. My recommendations to watch: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-many-people-can-live-on-planet-earth/ http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/home-project/ http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/sixth-extinction/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/02/living-age-stupid-documentary-review/ ... and, of course, this one: http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/02/living-age-stupid-documentary-review/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va_MVxpboqg

This guy claims that he reached above 150C/300F. Although he looks very seriously, I didn't find any peer-review opinion on his work. Could that be correct, or somewere is a huge glitch? http://www.superconductors.org/158C155C.htm http://www.superconductors.org/