Posted on 09/04/2016 12:33:41 PM PDT by Normandy
Thanks to Joseph J for posting about a report that has been published by the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) titled “Investigation of Nano-Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter”. The report is written by Pamela Mosier-Boss of SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, Lawrence Forsely of JWK International and Patrick K. McDaniel of the University of New Mexico.
According to Wikipedia the DTRA “is an agency within the United States Department of Defense and is the official Combat Support Agency for countering weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high explosives). DTRA’s main functions are threat reduction, threat control, combat support, and technology development. The agency is headquartered in Fort Belvoir, Virginia”
It is not clear to me exactly when the report was written, but the final page of the document shows a form which shows when various approvals have been given. The most recent references listed in the report are from 2012, so it appears that it has been circulating within the agency for a few years prior to this release. This paper was given approval for public release on Jun 7 2016 by the Public Affairs department of the DTRA.
The report itself is very lengthy and from a cursory reading is an analysis of the scientific evidence for nuclear reactions occurring in the metal lattice in LENR systems. The report focuses on the palladium-deuterium systems which were introduced in 1989 by Pons and Fleischmann.
(Excerpt) Read more at e-catworld.com ...
I couldn’t agree with you more. The paper is total garbage (almost like something generated here: https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/). I’d like to see an explanation from SPAWAR on why they think that this is worthy of their time and money. Honestly, I think their pursuit of this is waste, fraud, and abuse of government resources. If any government agency should be doing research on this, it would be the Department of Energy. This is beyond SPAWAR’s scope.
Cold fusion/LENR has been around for 25 years and nobody can point me to a single commercial product that uses the technology. That’s proof to me that it’s just more junk science.
It’s obvious that E-Cat just slapped a DTRA logo on their paper, which is not hard to do, in an effort to give it more credibility. They’ve pulled the same stunt with DIA, too. (Can anybody tell me why on God’s green earth the Defense Intelligence Agency would be funding research on LENR? That’s like having the Department of Housing & Urban Development researching blue whale migration.)
As far as the paper being released by DTIC.mil? If it’s not downloadable on their website, it didn’t happen. I don’t want to go into my resume here, but this is something that I actually have experience with.
I know, Lazamataz, you’re all butt-hurt that I’ve so rudely intruded on your fantasy life. You need to get over that, maybe your favorite episode of the X-Files would help.
Do not deny it, HERETIC.
Apparently, one of the authors, Lawrence Forsley, posted it on his ‘part’ of this website “academia dot edu” here:
http://utexas.academia.edu/LawrenceForsley
This is not as big a “conspiracy” as a few are purporting. It is also sad that so few are able to actually read a collection of technical research papers such as this and then boldly claim “Bogus!”
And here I am, throwing you a weird link. https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen is from MIT’s official website. These MIT students wrote a program that will generate a bogus technical paper, all you have to do is enter your name and/or anybody else’s that will show as the author(s) up top. Bogus technical papers generated by this program were actually submitted for presentation at several technical conferences and accepted! After being accepted, the students came clean and cancelled their presentations.
The whole thing was an exercise to show that it’s not that hard to submit a bogus paper and have it accepted by scientific peers, have it published, have it accepted for presentation at technical conferences, etc. An appalling amount of the time, it appears that the papers are never actually read, reviewers just read the executive summary, peruse the conclusions, give it a quick yea or nea, and it’s off to the next thing in life. I kinda think that’s what going on with LENR (and definitely with global warming; liberals in government and the private sector are shoveling money at anybody who is doing “work” to “prove” that global warming is real and their standards for scientific work are basically non-existent, while any skeptics are trashed and have their professional careers ruined for being “crackpots”).
Have you read the conclusions section of this paper? It’s total garbage. I’d be embarrassed to have my name on it. And it’s looking real serious like this paper just had a DTRA logo slapped on it to try to look credible. I’ll find out for sure on Tuesday since we’re on a holiday weekend.
That’s weird, I wonder why he would be posting a research paper on a U of Texas website when he’s not a student, faculty, or staff there (as evidenced by a search on the school directory at https://directory.utexas.edu/). He works for a company called JWK International, I wonder why he (or somebody) would be putting his name and picture right next to the words “The University of Texas at Austin, Nuclear Engineering Teaching Lab” as if he were on staff there?
EMB, if you think, perhaps, that you are being ignored, well, you would be very close to being spot on.
If you haven’t had a chance to review the IAP seminars conducted by Drs Peter Hagelstein and Mitchell Schwartz at MIT, then please take my recommendation and reserve a couple days to go over the videos of those events. You will at least know what *is* known about this field, and what devices show promise and also demonstrate positive indications of this phenom.
I don’t know the length and breadth of your technical education especially as it relates to physics and nuclear physics and test/measurement methodologies in particular; these are prerequisites short of buying shrink-wrapped, bubble-packed ‘working’ products off a stocked shelf at Wal-Mart in getting a ‘handle’ on whether this is real or quote simple instrumental error unquote or “synchronized mass delusion” by all who participated in this research.
If you are JUST coming on the scene and haven’t been following the efforts of John Spzack or Pamela Mosier-Boss, over the years, I can see where you might be at a disadvantage compared to some of us who have been following the efforts and research in this field.
Pam Mosier-Boss’ CR-39 technique for detecting neutron production is especially intriguing and convincing to me in particular. She has previously published and presented on this subject, too.
That doesn’t bother me, being ignored is a step up from the usual personal attacks. I find it extremely ironic that pro-science people tell you you’re an idiot if you don’t turn off your brain and BELIEVE.
Here’s my problem: work in this field has been ongoing for 25 years and nobody can show me so much as a desktop lamp powered by it. You’re not gonna win a lot of converts when somebody says “Show me” and all you can do is point them to a mountain of paperwork that’s accumulated for 25 years. Am I going to live long enough to see something useful produced?
25 years of big talk and ZERO results. But I’m an ignorant jerk for not being impressed.
Professor McDaniel sent me back a very thoughtful e-mail, so at least we know he co-wrote this thing and somebody didn’t just throw his name on there. DTRA public affairs told me that DTIC is the instrument they use to release documents, so it should be there if they released it. I’ve asked the question to DTIC.mil as to whether they have the document, I’m still awaiting a reply.
Thanks for the update, EMB.
“25 years of big talk and ZERO results. But I’m an ignorant jerk for not being impressed.”
Yeah, after Pons and Fleischmann were blacklisted after a lot of hastily contrived experiments by a few well-known labs FAILED Pons and Fleischmann gained a bad name and then NOBODY (publicly; SPAWAR and a few others picked up the ball behind the scenes) would then FUND this research.
BTW, don’t be such a jerk; you look stupid doing so.
You have NOT reviewed even the first of the vids taken of Dr. Peter Hagelstein’s inrtos to one of his IAP courses/forums on this subject yet, have you?
Here (below) are the first in a series of IAP lectures at MIT in 2013 and 2014 covering the history of P and F and the issues people had in replicating their experiment.
I apologize for the bad audio in the 2013 version ahead of time; I’ll see if I can get a copy and have someone improve the audio track and upload a better copy. (There are only slight differences between 2013 and 2014 versions.)
From 2014, 1st day, (good audio)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0aXShVzGNg
From 2013, 1st day (bad audio)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S3RL2T7xGs
These IAP courses at MIT took place over a week (Mon - Fri) so there are five different videos for each series.
Here’s the reply from the DTIC librarian that I got yesterday afternoon:
“Good afternoon Mr. XXXXXXXX. We do not have that document in the DTIC collections. I contacted the DTRA librarian and they don’t have it in their collection either. They are trying to locate it; contacted one of the authors. Now, there is a link on google for that document; however, we can’t validate its authenticity. I will keep you posted as we try to locate this document.”
Govt. endorsement and release? That’s a big no. I don’t want to accuse E-Cat of lying (yet), we’ll just go with the headline being “premature” for now.
When I commented at E-Cat World using my Disqus account with essentially the above comment (#95), it was immediately pulled, as were my criticisms of Chapter 5.0 ‘Conclusions’ (which are really just an affirmation of catnipman’s post #76). That tells me I’m onto something.
Good to get the librarian’s response. Thanks for making contact.
The report is now covered at the Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/11/feds-may-have-made-a-huge-breakthrough-in-cold-fusion/
Sounds to me like somebody had an oh-sh** moment and are explaining to their commander why their people were working this on-the-clock instead of doing work they were assigned.
The Daily Caller article has been updated, and now includes this sentence: “DTRA has confirmed the documents are authentic.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/11/feds-may-have-made-a-huge-breakthrough-in-cold-fusion/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.