Posted on 06/10/2012 7:01:23 PM PDT by Kevmo
NASA LENR Research June 6, 2012
Some of the inner workings behind the decision to fund LENR research at NASA have now been revealed. There are no great shock-waves and no-one should get carried away into seeing things that are not there or implied. Even so, in answering Keith Cowing’s questions (published on the NASAWatch site) Dennis Bushnell and Joe Zawodny clarify a few important points. Funding is modest but useful at under $1m so far. The decision to fund was subject to internal peer-review and NASA HQ is briefed on progress. My guess is that the latter is just par for the course and we should avoid jumping to conclusions. While it is too much to assume HQ cheer-leading (if they were, I expect serious money would flow) but given the contentious arena where most scientists still consider the field junk science, this is significant. No-one can now deny that LENR research is real science.
It is easy to shout down the efforts of a few maverick’s but that becomes ever harder when the leading edge of those brave and smart enough to look into the glass includes credible institutions such as NASA’s Glen and Langley RCs. Tiny steps but important science and a huge leap for LENR politics and potential future funding.
[With thanks to Daniel Maris]
Posted by admin on June 6, 2012. Filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
-------------------------------------------------------------- http://ecatnews.com/?p=1144
The Cold Fusion Ping List
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
——————————————————————————————— http://ecatnews.com/?p=1144
June 7, 2012
Many people have been wondering about the level of NASA’s interest in LENR. Some are excited that they are looking into the subject, others are concerned that a government agency might be spending tax dollars on unproven science.
Keith Cowing of the web site NASA Watch is concerned that the agency might not be following its stated protocol; on his site he asks, “How do NASA’s Chief Technologist and Chief Scientist allow this stuff to be funded with taxpayer dollars without going through any of the agency’s standard peer review processes? Or do Rich Antcliff and Lesa Roe just fund this stuff with local center director’s discretionary slush funds and not tell HQ what they are doing?”
Because of this concern, Cowing sent some questions to Dennis Bushnell at NASA’s Langney Research Center, and received some responses which you can read here. Not surprisingly for a government agency, it seems that to undergo any project you have to go through some fairly stringent processes, and Bushnell explains in his answers how and why they started the research. The budget assigned to LENR research is quite small — a little over $200,000 per year so far. Bushnell explains that, “Langley’s Center Leadership Council (CLC) made the original decision to support the LENR research. The annual C&I continuations of this funding were approved by the Langley Science Council, which is comprised of Langley senior scientists.”
So it seems that this research has the official blessing of the leadership at Langley. Bushnell states that Joseph Zawodny, who has put out a couple of videos about his research interests, is the person who is heading up the effort. It’s small scale research at the moment, but it will be interesting to see what develops out of this project.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/06/nasa-answers-questions-about-lenr-research/
Cold Fusion Update From LaRC (Update)
By Keith Cowing on June 4, 2012 1:10 PM. 58 Comments
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/06/cold-fusion-upd.html
Keith’s note: On 26 May 2012 I posted “NASA LaRC now has its official cold fusion video online titled “Abundant Clean/Green Energy” which refers to a new form of “nuclear energy”. How do NASA’s Chief Technologist and Chief Scientist allow this stuff to be funded with taxpayer dollars without going through any of the agency’s standard peer review processes? Or do Rich Antcliff and Lesa Roe just fund this stuff with local center director’s discretionary slush funds and not tell HQ what they are doing?” I submitted a number of questions to LaRC regarding this research. I received a reply from LaRC yesterday and it is posted below.
Keith’s update: These are the most troubling parts of the LaRC response - apparently there are no publications related to this taxpayer-funded research. I asked. This is all they would tell me about: only a patent application is listed. FYI, anyone can file a patent application - about anything. People do it all the time. That said, after 3.5 years no one from NASA LaRC has published anything about this research - anywhere?
“2. How much has been spent to date on this LENR research and how much will be spent?: The average yearly cost for the approximately 3.5 years of the research thus far is about $222,000 for a total of about $778,000. The research is ongoing, and another $212,000 is budgeted for the remainder of FY 2012.
9. What publications have resulted from this NASA-funded research? (references/links
requested): A patent application has been published. Reference U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0255645.”
Full (official) LaRC response below
Earlier posts
- Official NASA Langley Cold Fusion Video Now Online
- Quack Science: Why Are NASA Glenn and Langley Funding Cold Fusion Research?
- Why is NASA Langley Wasting Time on Cold Fusion Research?
LENR RESPONSES TO NASA WATCH -provided by Dennis Bushnell, Langley senior scientist and Joseph Zawodny, LENR principal investigator
1. Who is funding this Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) research at LaRC?
Langley is funding LENR research as an initial, exploratory study of a low technology readiness level, high-risk, high-payoff technology through its Creativity & Innovation (C&I) fund and the Center Innovation Fund (CIF).
2. How much has been spent to date on this LENR research and how much will be spent?
The average yearly cost for the approximately 3.5 years of the research thus far is about $222,000 for a total of about $778,000. The research is ongoing, and another $212,000 is budgeted for the remainder of FY 2012.
3. Who is the PI listed on this research?
Dr. Joseph Zawodny
4. What individual(s) made the decision to fund this research?
Langley’s Center Leadership Council (CLC) made the original decision to support the LENR research. The annual C&I continuations of this funding were approved by the Langley Science Council, which is comprised of Langley senior scientists. With regard to CIF, the LaRC Chief Technologist approved funding of LENR research using the CIF peer review process.
5. Was a formal proposal submitted?
A proposal was presented by the PI for consideration to the Center Leadership Council and another proposal was submitted to the Center Innovation Fund.
If so can you provide that proposal?
This documentation reflects the internal deliberative process for Agency decisions. In order to protect the Agency’s decision-making process by ensuring open and frank advice and recommendations are provided to Center leadership, this documentation is not being provided. This documentation may also contain information that would not be released on the basis of other considerations (e.g. intellectual property).
Was this an unsolicited proposal or did LaRC ask the submitter to provide a proposal?
The proposal to the CLC was made as part of an ongoing process of presenting technologies of potential interest to the CLC for decisions on funding and resource allocation. The proposal to the Center Innovation Fund was in response to a broad call for technologies relevant to NASA’s priorities.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/strategic_integration/grand_challenges_detail.html
6. Was this LENR research peer reviewed prior to being given funding?
It was reviewed initially by the CLC. C&I funding continuations are contingent on an annual peer review by the Langley Science Council. Both the CIF proposal and the C&I continuation proposals were peer reviewed.
If so, please provide a copy of internal reviews and a link to the LaRC process whereby this review was conducted. If no peer review was provided, can you explain what process LaRC used to determine that this research was worth funding?
The CIF and C&I review processes are attached (Note: we are currently updating the C&I process to reflect that HQ no longer requires reports and the Innovation Panel is being replaced by the Science Council). Additional information pertaining to the CIF is available at http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/early_stage_innovation/innovation_fund/index.html.
Internal reviews are not being provided because they reflect the internal deliberative process for Agency decisions. This documentation may also contain information that would not be released on the basis of other considerations (e.g. intellectual property).
7. Did anyone at NASA headquarters had a role in deciding whether this research was to be funded?
No.
If so, who was involved?
N/A
8. Does LaRC provide NASA HQ with status reports on this research?
Yes, updates and information in general about CIF projects are provided to NASA HQ. Last fall, Langley briefed the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT), with representatives from the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate and the NASA Office of the Chief Engineer present. As part of the general CIF review process, there was also a briefing at Langley, with copies provided to OCT, in June 2011.
9. What publications have resulted from this NASA-funded research? (references/links
requested)
A patent application has been published. Reference U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0255645.
10. Are contractors, subcontractors, consultants, or advisors employed to conduct this research? If so, please identify these individuals/companies/institutions
An activity was issued under NASA Langley’s cooperative agreement with the NationalInstitute of Aerospace in Hampton, VA, to scope an LENR access-to-space rocket. To date, this is the only contract action taken by NASA Langley in support of LENR research.
Categories:
News
Tags:
Cold Fusion,
LaRC,
LENR
Why we messing around with this cr@p, when we should be investing more in Solar Panels? </sarcasm>
What is the best evidence that cold fusion works I wonder?
I was just reading a book by Michio Kaku who says that cold fusion couldn’t be actually fusion or it would produce so much radiation that it would kill the people running the machines. He thinks that the energy is a discrete chemical reaction.
Just because there is a patient doesn’t mean the patient product works. It just means that someone filled out the forms.
You mean like a cancer patient?
1 million dollars can buy a lot of pixie dust ... should ask Disney Enterprises for a professional discount!
He thinks that the energy is a discrete chemical reaction.
***All the better. Then there will be no need for the NRC to get involved.
bump for tomorrow....
No need for anybody to stop yawning about it either.
Well, if a blog named after a scam says so...
That is what the skeptopaths all say about cold fusion. I suggest reading Storm's book instead. He actually covers (exhaustively, in fact) the science behind LENR/CF.
He also has a few good summaries that cover much of the same ground as in his book that are available on-line.
OK, you say that Storm explains the theory. Hope this works out. Be great to have low cost energy.
Well, Storm has just recently come up with one possible theory, out of several. There is no commonly accepted explanation/theory.
What Storms "has" done is compile an exhaustive collection and summary of the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE for the existence of LENR.
The skeptopaths keep trying to sell the idea that if there is no theory, then LENR isn't real.
However, that meme is NOT SCIENCE.....the sole thing that matters in science is well-done and well-documented experimental evidence, preferably reproduced by different researchers.
Theory is nice, and can advance practice hugely, but "experiment rules". You can spin out all the pretty theories you like, but, unless they are based on validated experimental evidence, they are so much hot air.
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.