We can make energy out of matter, and matter out of energy. With cold
fusion, we will unlock the power of the atom, and the world will have
infinite energy and be able to create matter out of energy and thus
infinite wealth.

Cold fusion is for real. Just like the light bulb it may take many
attempts to get right.

Thomas Edison failed more than 1,000 times when trying to create the
light bulb. When asked about it, Edison allegedly said, "I have not
failed 1,000 times. I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT
make a light bulb."

Cold fusion is for real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion


From Wired Magazine "What If Cold Fusion Is Real?"

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6...fusion_pr.html

"That's what makes cold fusion so nonreproducible," says Storms. "You
have to load the palladium with very high concentrations [of
deuterium], and many samples simply won't tolerate it."

"Heat has practical applications," concedes McKubre, "but what am I
supposed to do with the ability to turn expensive elements into cheap
ones?"

This, finally, is his explanation for many negative results. There's
still a snag, though. Just because he knows how to select good
palladium, doesn't mean he knows how to make it. "Pons and Fleischmann
used to test samples from a supplier, Johnson Matthey, and over the
years they figured out how to create palladium that worked most of the
time. But Johnson Matthey signed a nondisclosure agreement with
Technova, the Toyota-supported group that financed the research in
France. The Japanese thought cold fusion would be hugely successful,
and therefore everyone would want this certain type of palladium, and
they'd clean up."

Of course, it never happened. Technova abandoned cold fusion. But
according to Storms the nondisclosure agreement still exists, and
Johnson Matthey is still bound by it. (A spokesperson at Johnson
Matthey would not confirm that an agreement exists.)

"Someone should buy it from Technova," I suggest.

Storms laughs. "Why should they? It's worthless! You can't make any
money from cold fusion - at least, not using the Pons-Fleischmann
method."

And so, at this point, Storms is stymied. He shows me a paper he has
written, with a grim cover letter: "Ironically, it is now possible to
know why we failed but it is too late to follow a more successful
path ... Without access to widely circulated journals, this negative
attitude within the scientific community obviously cannot be changed.
Even overwhelming proof, as demanded by many scientists in the past,
can have no effect because no mechanism exists for it to be
communicated to the scientific professions."

wrote:
We can make energy out of matter, and matter out of energy. With cold
fusion, we will unlock the power of the atom, and the world will have
infinite energy and be able to create matter out of energy and thus
infinite wealth.

Cold fusion is for real. Just like the light bulb it may take many
attempts to get right.

Thomas Edison failed more than 1,000 times when trying to create the
light bulb. When asked about it, Edison allegedly said, "I have not
failed 1,000 times. I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT
make a light bulb."

Cold fusion is for real.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm

Hiv is the cold fusion of virology.

Uwe Hayek.


--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.

On Jul 22, 10:05 pm, " wrote:
We can make energy out of matter, and matter out of energy. With cold
fusion, we will unlock the power of the atom, and the world will have
infinite energy and be able to create matter out of energy and thus
infinite wealth.

Cold fusion is for real. Just like the light bulb it may take many
attempts to get right.

Thomas Edison failed more than 1,000 times when trying to create the
light bulb. When asked about it, Edison allegedly said, "I have not
failed 1,000 times. I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT
make a light bulb."

Cold fusion is for real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

From Wired Magazine "What If Cold Fusion Is Real?"

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6...fusion_pr.html

"That's what makes cold fusion so nonreproducible," says Storms. "You
have to load the palladium with very high concentrations [of
deuterium], and many samples simply won't tolerate it."

"Heat has practical applications," concedes McKubre, "but what am I
supposed to do with the ability to turn expensive elements into cheap
ones?"

This, finally, is his explanation for many negative results. There's
still a snag, though. Just because he knows how to select good
palladium, doesn't mean he knows how to make it. "Pons and Fleischmann
used to test samples from a supplier, Johnson Matthey, and over the
years they figured out how to create palladium that worked most of the
time. But Johnson Matthey signed a nondisclosure agreement with
Technova, the Toyota-supported group that financed the research in
France. The Japanese thought cold fusion would be hugely successful,
and therefore everyone would want this certain type of palladium, and
they'd clean up."

Of course, it never happened. Technova abandoned cold fusion. But
according to Storms the nondisclosure agreement still exists, and
Johnson Matthey is still bound by it. (A spokesperson at Johnson
Matthey would not confirm that an agreement exists.)

"Someone should buy it from Technova," I suggest.

Storms laughs. "Why should they? It's worthless! You can't make any
money from cold fusion - at least, not using the Pons-Fleischmann
method."

And so, at this point, Storms is stymied. He shows me a paper he has
written, with a grim cover letter: "Ironically, it is now possible to
know why we failed but it is too late to follow a more successful
path ... Without access to widely circulated journals, this negative
attitude within the scientific community obviously cannot be changed.
Even overwhelming proof, as demanded by many scientists in the past,
can have no effect because no mechanism exists for it to be
communicated to the scientific professions."

Isn't it amazing? When it's too good to be true, and isn't, it MUST
have been suppressed by a gigantic conspiracy.

On Jul 23, 7:07*pm, webpa wrote:

Isn't it amazing? *When it's too good to be true, and isn't, it MUST
have been suppressed by a gigantic conspiracy.

Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery obviously has the
potential to upend HUGE economic vested interests and suddenly seems
to disappear into a black hole, a host of sheep always appear bleating
that any suggestion of foul play is insanity.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:31:41 -0700 (PDT), Benj
wrote:

On Jul 23, 7:07Â*pm, webpa wrote:

Isn't it amazing? Â*When it's too good to be true, and isn't, it MUST
have been suppressed by a gigantic conspiracy.

Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery obviously has the
potential to upend HUGE economic vested interests and suddenly seems
to disappear into a black hole, a host of sheep always appear bleating
that any suggestion of foul play is insanity.

Isn't it amazing? When you dump a bunch of **** in the road,
suddenly all these tools of the establishment show up saying,
"Gee, this stinks." Just goes to show how vast the conspiracy is,
I guess.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

On 7ÔÂ23ÈÕ, ÏÂÎç12ʱ05·Ö, " wrote:
We can make energy out of matter, and matter out of energy. With cold
fusion, we will unlock the power of the atom, and the world will have
infinite energy and be able to create matter out of energy and thus
infinite wealth.

Cold fusion is for real. Just like the light bulb it may take many
attempts to get right.

Thomas Edison failed more than 1,000 times when trying to create the
light bulb. When asked about it, Edison allegedly said, "I have not
failed 1,000 times. I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT
make a light bulb."

Cold fusion is for real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

From Wired Magazine "What If Cold Fusion Is Real?"

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6...fusion_pr.html

"That's what makes cold fusion so nonreproducible," says Storms. "You
have to load the palladium with very high concentrations [of
deuterium], and many samples simply won't tolerate it."

"Heat has practical applications," concedes McKubre, "but what am I
supposed to do with the ability to turn expensive elements into cheap
ones?"

This, finally, is his explanation for many negative results. There's
still a snag, though. Just because he knows how to select good
palladium, doesn't mean he knows how to make it. "Pons and Fleischmann
used to test samples from a supplier, Johnson Matthey, and over the
years they figured out how to create palladium that worked most of the
time. But Johnson Matthey signed a nondisclosure agreement with
Technova, the Toyota-supported group that financed the research in
France. The Japanese thought cold fusion would be hugely successful,
and therefore everyone would want this certain type of palladium, and
they'd clean up."

Of course, it never happened. Technova abandoned cold fusion. But
according to Storms the nondisclosure agreement still exists, and
Johnson Matthey is still bound by it. (A spokesperson at Johnson
Matthey would not confirm that an agreement exists.)

"Someone should buy it from Technova," I suggest.

Storms laughs. "Why should they? It's worthless! You can't make any
money from cold fusion - at least, not using the Pons-Fleischmann
method."

And so, at this point, Storms is stymied. He shows me a paper he has
written, with a grim cover letter: "Ironically, it is now possible to
know why we failed but it is too late to follow a more successful
path ... Without access to widely circulated journals, this negative
attitude within the scientific community obviously cannot be changed.
Even overwhelming proof, as demanded by many scientists in the past,
can have no effect because no mechanism exists for it to be
communicated to the scientific professions."

On 7月24日, 上�12时51分, Hayek wrote:
wrote:
We can make energy out of matter, and matter out of energy. Â*With cold
fusion, we will unlock the power of the atom, and the world will have
infinite energy and be able to create matter out of energy and thus
infinite wealth.

Cold fusion is for real. Â*Just like the light bulb it may take many
attempts to get right.

Thomas Edison failed more than 1,000 times when trying to create the
light bulb. Â*When asked about it, Edison allegedly said, "I have not
failed 1,000 times. Â*I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT
make a light bulb."

Cold fusion is for real.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm

Hiv is the cold fusion of virology.

Uwe Hayek.

--
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in België] naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.

In sci.physics.fusion Benj wrote:
: On Jul 23, 7:07?pm, webpa wrote:

: Isn't it amazing? ?When it's too good to be true, and isn't, it MUST
: have been suppressed by a gigantic conspiracy.

: Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery obviously has the
: potential to upend HUGE economic vested interests and suddenly seems
: to disappear into a black hole, a host of sheep always appear bleating
: that any suggestion of foul play is insanity.

Isn't it amazing? When a reported discovery violates fundamental
principles of physics, it suddenly seems to disappear into a black hole,
and anyone who suggests a connection between the two is accused (by people
who don't know anything about physics) of being part of some huge
secret conspiracy that only the accuser knows about.

-----
Richard Schultz
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article

On Jul 24, 7:20*pm, Bill Snyder wrote:

Isn't it amazing? *When you dump a bunch of **** in the road,
suddenly all these tools of the establishment show up saying,
"Gee, this stinks." *Just goes to show how vast the conspiracy is,
I guess.

Isn't it amazing how when tools of the establishment show up to
ridicule and "debunk" any topic that is to be discouraged from any
reasonable discussion, they always have to have the last word?

Did too!

On Jul 25, 4:28*am, (Richard Schultz) wrote:

Isn't it amazing? *When a reported discovery violates fundamental
principles of physics, it suddenly seems to disappear into a black hole,
and anyone who suggests a connection between the two is accused (by people
who don't know anything about physics) of being part of some huge
secret conspiracy that only the accuser knows about.

Isn't it amazing that when anyone brings up the subject of political
and economic interests just MIGHT be interested in discoveries that
have the potential to up-end their establishment businesses and power
cliques, there is always a host of sheep who seem to know ALL the laws
of physics including those not discovered yet who scream that these
laws have been "violated". Needless to say a careful examination or
even ANY examination of the reported discovery is not a requirement to
having a negative opinion.

Lets ask a couple of questions he

1. And does not interest by huge economic interests (say oil
companies) constitute a "huge" interest in the impact of new
discoveries upon the business?

2. Aren't conspiracies ALL "secret"? That's what makes them
conspiracies, no?

3. If they are "secret" how can the accuser "know" about them?

4. Isn't the sudden presence of bleating "debunkers" a suspicious
fact?

5. Suspicions are not the same as "knowing" about consipracies. They
are "secret" remember?

6. Why is it that all "debunkers" can do is simply assert that they
are right and you should pay not attention to the man behind the
curtain. No hard facts are ever offered. From whence to they claim
the authority that their opinions should be blindly accepted without
question?

7. And lastly, Why is it that the debunkers throw chaff into the wind
to deftly steer any reasonable discussion of these issues into the
backwaters of school yard name calling and to other more PC topics.
Why is any reasonable discussion of "off limits" topics not allowed?

Tell us again how you have no agenda!