"Still, the fact that economic drivers are now spurring more research is very promising."

Maybe I'm being a bit naive here but what are the economic drivers?

Current energy and alternative sources have been and continue to be a focal point for all nations. Until we are faced with the reality of the necessity for alternative sources production of goods and services will continue use the most economic and affordable means as possible. That which is primarily oil.

The Oil Reserve Fallacy

CRYING WOLF Warnings about oil supply

Seems to me if oil companies were really hell bent on surviving they would certainly be doing a lot more in research and development with their profits instead of relying on funding supplied by government.

USMC, the News.com article answers your question quite well, I thought.

As for the oil companies, with prices going up their investment is attracted to the sources of greatest additional profit. This is often additional oil exploration in new frontiers like the Africa's Gulf of Guinea, Guyana/Suriname, Russia, et. al. Understandable.

Even so, we can see that some companies like BP are beginning to diversify. They're the exception, and will probably remain so for a while. One does not expect the giants of present industries to power the innovations that may become tomorrow's alternatives.

How many of the big airlines started life as big, profitable railroads? Right.

If you're curious, Clayton Christiensen and others have researched this phenomenon across a wide variety of industries, and explain why it doesn't happen. Something called "The Innovator's Dilemma." Google it and see.

GE which makes natural gas burning generators is also big in wind. It pioneered 3.6MW production turbines for offshore use.

And IBM figured out how to prosper from PCs in a PC age.

Not all established enterprises are afraid of canabalizing their own markets.

I'm curious if anyone has seen this website or knows anyone who could build this engine from the instructions/blueprints provided.

Link to website

It would be interesting to find out if it works.

SBD

Ah, disruptive technologies. Adapt or die.

Joe
Thanks for your comments and recommendations concerning The Innovator's Dilemma written by Clayton Christiensen.

Let me clarify my statement concerning companies survival. While it is true that some of the Oil conglomerates are actively spending money on R&D in other areas of energy and alternate sources they are also looking for the most profit in alernative uses. The links provided were meant to show that OIL will be the energy source for a long time coming.

Case in point the suggestion of wind / solar as alternative sources. Not only is it viable the leaps in technology have been astounding to say the least. Will we see a car that is viable operated on wind? Doubtful. Solar power? Been there done that. Both of these technologies offer benefits over oil consumption in a multitude of ways one being cleaner air. Both also provide other dilemma's in the market sector that are not justifiable on a profit basis. Wind fields are not the prettiest things in the world nor are they the most effective means of land use. Solar on the other hand has the capability of eliminating a profit structure to the point the only profit is in manufacturing assuming once the product is developed it would never need to be replaced (my Sharp EL-515S calculator). In all cases the alternative sources are being viewed as an add on to the current source and not as replacements.

"Case in point the suggestion of wind / solar as alternative sources. Not only is it viable the leaps in technology have been astounding to say the least. Will we see a car that is viable operated on wind? Doubtful. Solar power? Been there done that."
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/fig19.cfm
From that graph it would indicate that transport is a big consumer of energy, but it is not the majority use, therefore any energy sources inapplicability to be used in cars is prolly not a fatal flaw.

"Solar on the other hand has the capability of eliminating a profit structure to the point the only profit is in manufacturing assuming once the product is developed it would never need to be replaced.."
Very few products never need replacing, I doubt alternative energy equipment will be any different. Solar cells prolly have a good chance of being long lasting though.

The recent announcement from the DOE that it will finally take another look at Cold Fusion could be a sign of changes for the better. It has been 15 years since the two scientists from Utah announced the production of energy using Cold Fusion. Since 1989, the scientific community and in particular physics have made it their goal to discredit Cold Fusion even though the science is now producing working models. Even Los Alamos and SPAWAR in San Diego have produced sucessful Cold Fusion energy cells. Take a look at this video clip and follow these links for more information about the current state of Cold Fusion.

Wired Magazine--What If Cold Fusion Is Real?

Cold Fusion Rides Again

Science magazine publishes more evidence of tabletop nuclear reactions

This site features a library of papers on LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, also known as Cold Fusion.

SBD

"I'm curious if anyone has seen this website or knows anyone who could build this engine from the instructions/blueprints provided.

It would be interesting to find out if it works."

To work it would have to violate the laws of physics (conservation of energy). What the link describes is electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen to run the engine. Electrolysis is about 70% efficient. That means for each unit of electrical energy used to split the water atoms, 0.7 unit of chemical energy would be produced (the remaining 0.3 units would be lost as heat). The cars engine is only about 40% efficient, yielding a total mechanical output at the engine of 0.28 units of energy for each unit of electrical energy used to split the water atoms. The alternator will further degrade the overall energy efficiency to less than 25%. The nonsense about the “latent heat” of water further demonstrates these people need a whack or two from a clue bat. Latent heat is the energy required to change it’s phase (ice to liquid or liquid to ice, liquid to vapor or vapor to liquid). Changing the phase state of water from liquid to gas requires adding energy to the water. In other words, the latent heat the authors of this nonsense are attempting to exploit has a negative value!

GIVE ME A BREAK

COLD FUSION MEMO

Before people go nuts and I get blasted I want to say I am open minded concerning scientific research and scientific accomplishments. That said this is my personal take on what I have I read in this memo. Keep in mind this is a memo sanctioned and written by our elite scholars.

Bush Sr. / Clinton Administration actions:

1 - Government denial based on the public scientific community observations recommendations assessments is wrong. The scientific community did not support the findings but the government must call them liars. Give me a break.

2 - Government run institutions (DOE) must be compelled to work under the direction of the public scientific community. Work in conjunction with is more likely. Compelled? Never. Give me a break.

3 - Government must apologize to Drs. Fleishmann / Pons concerning the public’s scientific community ridicule. Give me a break.

4 - Government killed the patent the probable illegal killing of the patent. Yet it was received belatedly (6,024,935) Give me a break.

5 - It’s governments fault MIT, Caltech, and Harwell didn’t pursue “Cold Fusion” after the scientific community rebuffed the findings. Give me a break.

6 - Private industry can run with it as long as bureaucratic interference is eliminated. Excuse me the government rebuffs “Cold Fusion” based on the scientific community so we are asking the scientific community to back off. Give me a break.

7 - No massive federal expenditure required. First you want government approval then you want government to keep it’s mitts off. Give me break.

“There is a severe and widespread materials and theory problem related to materials that produce the effects. Criteria are available to test materials for potential activity, but knowledge of how to produce such material at will is not yet available.”

What material is it we need to produce and what are we talking about? I thought we talking about water and a reaction with certain materials that already exceeds the break even point. Give me a break.

Add insult to injury Dr. Pons denounces his US citizenship to become a citizen of France and this is our governments fault. Give me a break.

Finally for those are wondering about “cold fusion” and it’s future within the US Government.

The 2005 Budget provides significant funding increases for research and development of clean coal and hydrogen fuel cell technologies, and invests in longer-term technologies such as next generation nuclear and fusion energy. It also improves energy security by meeting the President’s commitment to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to its maximum capacity of 700 million barrels in 2005, and by increasing funding for electricity reliability research and development to help prevent electricity disruptions.

2005 Discretionary Budget Authority:
$24.3 billion (gross)

SBD,

Greg F is 100% right... and if you look at the comments to the News.com article, Dave Austin says in no uncertain terms that the guy in question (and his GEET technology) is a fraud

The Cold Fusion links are interesting and thanks, but we're still in the very earliest experimental stage and would remain there for a long time even if this was a widely pursued field. It's very clear that they're still trying to understand the basic science there - harnessing it comes much later if at all.

"USMC",

As noted in my blog post, none of this is going to replace fossil fuels any time soon. So there's no disagreement on that score. They won't even replace nuclear power, as Monday's article will make clear.

But things like fuel cells for consuer devices, inexpensive solar panel production, efficient long distance power transmission, etc. can lay the groundwork for further advances and create real solutions and change at the margins that makes a contribution. For instance, imagine if solar films are so inexpensive one day that roof shingles with this feature are in widespread use. And high quality films plus a long-distance grid make large-scale power export a viable industry for New Mexico, Nevada, et. al. Throw in new styles of architecture that are much more energy efficient and not a lot more expensive, plus conventional advances like energy-efficient lighting, and it's possible for the combination to make a difference over time.

It will take time. Building up a whole new class of technologies aqnd commercializing them (as opposed to taking one scientific theory that's already understood and making it work mechanically) requires a slow buildup of commericalized advances, not big breakthroughs. The key (vid. James Burke's work) is when the advances start "cross-pollinating" with other advances that have proven themselves.

That's why people who talk about a "Manhattan Project for energy independence" sound dishonest and silly to me, rather than helpful... the expectations and perspective are all wrong and make a failure, backlash & abandonment cycle inevitable.

While I bow to none in my desire for energy-independence for the U. S. and greater use of non-fossil fuels we should all remember that petroleum is in our future for the foreseeable future. And while research is good we should be very cautious in subsidizing the adoption of otherwise uneconomical solutions.

And, of course, the most straightforward path to reducing our dependence on foreign oil would be to annex Alberta (the Albertans probably wouldn't mind). Sorry, Joe.

If you just sit tight and tell Alberta that they'd be welcome, they might be angry enough these days to up and join you on their own initiative.

Call me skeptical:

What if Cold Fusion is real?

Cold Fusion Rides Again

1 - The controversy centers around money for favorite research projects in the scientific “Energy Industry” specifically related to physics. Call me stupid but yes I agree it’s about the money. Given the money our government spends on research and some of the fine upstanding bone headed things that we do I’d say research money is an issue.

2 - I think we can say with out question that the scientific community truly believes it is the governments fault “Cold Fusion” has not come to fruition. On the one hand they claim DOE (Oak Ridge) is the cause of all the hang ups, discredit, and malicious back stabbing of the scientific community. DOE did not do due diligence in research due to funding for other special projects and beliefs. Yet on the other hand they are reported to have spent $14.7 billion with a “B” folks compared to JET's $1 billion 15 European sponsor-nations research project. How much more does the US government need to spend?

3 - I think we would all agree that the promise of “Tabletop Fusion” would be a technological achievement with expectations far reaching anything we can possibly imagine at this point. The question is should we as a society continue to pour more $$’s into the research or let the private industry at public expense chase the dream? I see this one coming folks. Let’s all blame the Executive Branch or government administration failures for not researching and developing the technology first. I mean let’s be honest here the public benefit is more than we can ever dream about let alone the military applications of such a break through. Why wouldn’t governments want to spend tax payer’s dollars on such research?

4 - I think we could all agree that technological achievements are to some extent achieved by necessity although necessity is not the sole driving factor. Some of the greatest innovators in history have accomplished alone what a room of money grabbing scientists can’t accomplish together.

All may think this a little cruel but let me emphasize how one might institute a change without money being the primary factor. AIDS is an ever growing problem not only in third world countries but also in societies that are very well to do. The research grants and charities for developing a cure are astounding and the competition is fierce to say the least. Let’s take the money issue out of the equation and put the stakes at a higher level. If we were to grant every biological scientist unlimited funds to find a cure but with one caveat. We infect you with AIDS prior to allowing the funds. Would our scientific community immediately develop a cure money be damned or would they let the world suffer?

I’ll end with following note. Provide the dollars for investigation and research of current analysis and findings the scientific community has now said will make all the difference. Of course the scientist(s) who are adamant about their claims should work with the government agencies to ensure their requirements, specifications and protocols are followed to the letter. The caveat here being put or shut up. The question of well OK that didn’t work what if we do this instead does not apply. Why? This means you need more $$ and my pockets are empty. I gave you your shot and you blew it how much more accommodating can we be? I mean it wasn’t even on the scientific communities nickel it’s on the tax payer’s nickel so we should have the right to tell you get lost when results are not achieved. Fair enough I think.

Good points, USMC. Even if one believes that Cold Fusion is 100% for real, Kuhn's work on the structure of scientific revolutions explains all of this without any requirement for central coordination or a malevolent government.

I don't think this is a government issue either, and I think placing the blame there is unproductive. Something to consider, SBD...

I should also note that I'm a not yet convinced Cold Fusion is for real. Of course, that's also why I'm glad to hear that respected people with tenure are still running the experiments.

Joe:  Kuhn's generational turnover in scientific attitudes is certainly wrong.  These days all it takes is solid evidence (say, for cosmic inflation) and people fall in line, though they never stop testing the theory to see if the real world contradicts it.

Energy for transport is the most difficult problem we face when we try to convert away from oil.  Current batteries are not up to the performance and density we have grown to expect from liquid hydrocarbons.  As I noted here I believe that one possibility is to use zinc (or something like it) as a recyclable store of energy.  A few hundred pounds of zinc would take the average person through several days of driving and normal electrical consumption, and can be regenerated with more electricity.  This seems to fill alternative energy's problematic gap between inconsistent production and needs of consumption.

Joe,
The late Dr. Thomas Gold had experience with what he called the herd mentality in science.

Methane Hydrate?

hello Joe Katzman,
While it is true that some of the Oil conglomerates are actively spending money on R&D in other areas of energy and alternate sources they are also looking for the most profit in alernative uses.
GE which makes natural gas burning generators is also big in wind. It pioneered 3.6MW production turbines for offshore use.