i think not only is it possible but maybe they have already done it..........
now think.... do the powers that be want poeple to have cheap energy, can you imagine how much tax would be lost, how much money would not be made.

I work for a the 4th largest energy company in the U.K last year they made over £2 billion. Do you really think companies want to lose out on this cash, plus imagine what company's in other country's make e.g in The U.S, Russia with a population al lot more than that of the U.K.

Now why give the average joe a cheap form of energy, Because Poeple who make the money dont want to lose it thats why.

Now think... How much any kind of industry spends on energy. Any government that can set up cheap energy will have its national economy soar with all the cheap producing, industries from other countries would come for the good conditions and so on. Money rushes in, unemployment falls.

If the other governments try to suppress it, all the better. Now the only country that has it can economically kick everyone's sitting flesh. Which government wouldn't want to be the first, which one would be stupid enough to hold it back?

Hmmm... If cold fusion exists, I still have a few questions to it's immediate usefulness:

Would the energy density of the fuel used be high enough to be practical and economical? As I have heard the experiments used the element palladium, heavy water and some electricity. Palladium is not cheap, but I have no idea how much is needed, it is just used as electrodes, isn't it?...

The device itself would need to shield against gamma radiation, but at the same time be resistant to corrosion, and regulate the voltage and pressure of the device, so that you don't get buildup of hydrogen and oxygen gas inside it(running current through water, heavy or not would create an electrolytic effect) and perhaps cycle the water... would it be cheap to produce?

What would be the mean time between failure of such an device, could it be made reliable enough?

Is it safe enough for home use, or would one use centralized power plants?

Is the process even stable enough to be of any use? I have heard it suggested that small variations in the impurities of the electrodes may totally disrupt the functioning of such a device..
...

As for the cover-up thing, that is a bit foolish, you can't cover up technology for long, it has a tendency to be found when the prerequisites exists. Do they even have the power to cover it up? it hasn't worked before, just look what happened to the coal industry when other energy sources became available. The energy companies would likely try to get into a new marked, not try to hide it... The phone companies didn't go bye bye just because systems giving higher bandwidths for a lower price became available, after all...

And would power companies really loose money on this? people use more and more energy, some places have problems making enough of it.
And you would still need energy to power the things, not even cold fusion would be free... And again, you dont want your company to be kicked of the marked by the competitors, or perhaps even your country...

Cold fusion would be cool enough, but the lack of repeatability indicates that either it doesn't exist, or is very unstable.

__________________
Game over, you lose, we hope you enjoyed playing the exciting game of Thermodynamics...

Who are TPTB?

Why wouldn't the existing power companies make electricity using the cold fusion process and make even more money from that? Remember they have plenty of expertise in the energy generating and distribution area. The cold fusion process would cut their costs and make their industry even more profitable. I would think they would jump at the chance to utilise such a process if it worked.

Not to mention annihilate their competition thus grabbing the lions share of the energy industry.

Danny_Lpool, your speculation on energy companies holding back the technology does not explain why other sources of energy, such as hydroelectric and nuclear, have been developed as energy sources. Why didn't the energy companies hold this back as well? Wouldn't that cut into their valuable profits too, like you propose with cold fusion?

Perhaps the energy companies only surpress alternative sources which are *better*?

I can certainly see them keeping a lid on that which is more efficient, safer, and cleaner all rolled into one.. seems to me that all the alternative sources have one major flaw (ie., nuclear is dirty & dangerous, hydroelectric/solar/wind isn't as cost effective, etc).

For instance, zero-point energy. :^o I suppose that's a topic for a different thread, however.

So let me get this straight. We have a money hungry corporation that produces electricity in a dirty, dangerous and inefficient manner all the while sitting on a method of production that is safe, clean and more efficent.

They're in a position to increase their profits while basking in the glow of public opinion for running a safe, environmentally friendly industry and yet they continue on their current course. Perhaps you could share your logic for this action with us.

Cold fusion as originally proposed by Pons & Fleischman in the late 80's, (electrolysis of heavy water with palladium cathodes) is garbage science. Poor experimental technique, poor data analysis, unjustified conclusions and the list goes on. In short, it's bunk. As Pauli would have said, it's "not even wrong." Hundreds of scientists have tried to reproduce their results and no one has done so. Even those that claim to have confirmed it have never gotten the same result twice. All of this indiicates that cold fusion is not real. No one will ever develop a power source from it, so there's nothing for the "powers that be" (whoever they are) to hide. A good book on this is Gary Taubes' "Bad Science: The Weird Times and Short Life of Cold Fusion" or for a more acerbic take on this, and other ATM claims Robert Park's "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud."

Now muon induced fusion and sonoluminescent induced fusion have some science behind them. However the first would probably not be a practical energy source and the evidence for the second is still very weak and is awaiting confirmation. Even if it turns out to be real, there's a lot of practical engineering required to take it from the lab table to the power plant. My guess is that "hot" fusion would reach the practical stage before either of these techniques would.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

To keep the market cornered on energy production. If you make the production of energy safer (therefore easier to deal with), and more efficient, you open the door to new competition. Only a handful of companies are allowed to handle nuclear energy. Collecting fossil fuels, refining and burning those to produce energy is not for a "startup" either. Hydroelectric, solar, and wind require large investments in equipment for not so large a return as far as power is concerned.

Say a company were to start developing a box that could harness something theoretical such as zero-point energy. This box would supply enough wattage to run your home, was available cheaply, and all you'd have to do would be to buy the thing once and plug your household wiring into it.

Then what would we need the power companies for? We wouldn't. In essence, the easier something is to do, the more likely that you'll be facing more competition when doing it.

The logic behind it is sort of a stretch but it *is* a possibility.. if the infrastructure to do something complicated is already there, why introduce something easier that only makes your facilities obsolete??

Waldo.

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

What better way to corner the market than have this wonderful efficient, non-polluting, safe method of power production.

They would have every Tom Dick and Harry beating a path to their door trying to get in on the action. They would make a squillion dollars and their picture would be on the cover of Forbes magazine.

All the more reason for the company that came up with this idea to make use of it as soon as possible before some other company stumbles over the discovery.

It certainly is a stretch. Its all about competition. If you had a miraculous process for producing energy cheaply and efficiently you would be a fool to suppress it. If you can do it someone else will eventually find the answer as well. The first one to market makes the killing. There is no prize for second best.

Well since we're on big stretches of logic I counter with the notion that one energy company executive, and it would only take one, would have an altruistic change of heart and release the technology to the world. I'd say that is more likely to happen than the scenario you are proposing.

This looks like a case of seeing the glass as half-empty. Do you think that every high-level employee working for an energy company would supress hugely beneficial technology for their own selfish ends? The history of capitalism and technological development shows time and again that significant technological breakthroughs are quickly developed into products that are released to the market. Why? Because whomever does so gets $$$$$ while the other companies languish.

Here's some examples: Did the powerful radio companies such as RCA 'supress' TV technology? How about those microwave ovens, I don't recall a massive cover-up by companies that make stoves. Did movie theater owners persecute VCRs? Do we only have airplanes due to failed 'black-ops' attempts by train companies? The list goes on . . .

If there was a new energy source which was easier to implement and more cost effective we'd see it, and watch the releaser of that technology crush the competition (and be if court a lot defending his patents from imitators).

Admittedly, yes, I am a pessimist if not a cynic.

I do find myself wondering, however, if there *is* a clean, cheap, easily renewable energy source that is being sat upon until the fossil fuels do indeed run out.

If you suddenly obsolete the oil companies, instantly some of the top companies in the world are out of business. Multi-billion dollar refineries would close, hundreds of thousands of skilled laborers would lose jobs. Countries involved in OPEC would suddenly become massively poor.. and who knows what kind of uprisings might occur, the world could very well see a war because of it.

My view on it is that it's important to not replace the current system because there's so much invested in it that it would economically devestate the planet if suddenly something that was an incredible advance in power generation were to be released. That's not to say that the technologies even exist, but in my view it's likely that even if they did they would be quieted down for the benefit of the planet.

As a scientist you would agree that the truth should be released always, no matter what. But everyone else doesn't see things that way all the time, I'm just raising the possibility that perhaps the motives behind surpression might be altruistic as well, only in a different way--to maintain the status quo.

I agree - you are a pessimist. :wink:
You're entitled to your view, but you have gone from "companies won't release it to protect their infrastructure" to "companies won't release it so that the world doesn't become economically devastated". So now you think companies are suppressing new energy technology and you're glad they are? I guess you don't need to answer, you've noted that it is your opinion so I won't debate it.
I'm not a scientist I'm an accountant. My work has provided me with a reasonable amount of insight into how corporations and economies function.

I voted yes although I don't cold fusion is gonna happen any time soon, if at all. The suppression of something like this would not work anyway. This reminds of the urban-legend that we really have a cure for things like cancer, but are withholding it for the sake of special interests. People that peddle this nonsense never have to prove it.

I'm not playing both sides of the coin simply to appear correct, if that's how you're interpreting this; I'm merely stating possible reasons for *why* technologies might be surpressed if they do exist.

Nothing more.

I am not, which is why I present these ideas; to have people who actually know how those sorts of things work evaluate the ideas and correct me--thereby improving my quality of knowledge!

Triangle Man

Just a few points. Movie companies did jump through their shorts when VCRs came out. Nothing came of it ofcourse. Also, car companies secretly bought up light rail systems in Detroit, LA and elsewhere and had them torn up because they didn't want the competition. Currently, I think we are seeing the wide scale suppression of digital information technology not to mention the babblefication of media formats. I know this is sorta tangent to what you said but I just wanted to add some info... I'm not challenging you... I think you don't really cover up/suppress these technologies so much as resist funding and researching them... not so hard to do...

I was really a fan of the energy conspiracy idea for a while. I noticed that 3 of the top ten largest companies on earth are Exxon, Mobil and BP... Enron used to be on the list too. My conspiracy theory was that these companies were somehow blackballing nuclear power by secretly funding environmental groups. Others have suggested a Green-Red (enviro-soviet) conspiracy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of thing. I also tracked down that we had 700,000 coal miners just after WWII to worry about and all these hydroelectric facilities producing power that we didn't want nuclear to compete with. Now we only have 70,000 miners so this is less of an issue and some of the hydroelectric facilities are starting to get payed off. In any event, I've sort of abandoned the conspiracy theory idea. I'm sure some political chicanery and back room ballyhoo went on but there is a lot of other stuff too. A friend of mine pointed out the rule of conspiracy: gotta keep it small... My theory fails this test.

Cold fusion: An extensive search of the web turns up nothing but some cold fusion theorist complaining about hot fusion getting all the cash. The articles speak of low-energy unexplained phenomenon and whatnot. I'm not impressed.

Doesn't anyone remember the great slide-rule war of the 1970's when electronic calculators hit the market?

Those of us older might recall the fires of the candle uprising when the electric light was invented, not to mention the horse-and-bugaboo when that infernal horseless carriage came out!

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2010 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Fair enough. Noted.

Lee brought up some good points about technology supression in that competitors definately have an interest in trying to combat a new technology that puts them at a disadvantage, for reasons explained in previous posts by myself and NGR.

Lee also brought up a great example with the coal miners, an obsolete fuel source that was surpassed in terms of efficiency by oil, hydro and nuclear and yet still exists. There were problems, hundreds of thousands of coal miners lost their jobs over time, but there were gains in employment in the other energy sectors. Not a good thing for the unemployed coal miner, great thing for the up-and-coming oil rig worker. Yes, there were strikes and unrest from those communities that suffered when the world started moving away from coal but there was no mass panic, economic collapse, or wars from it.

Another point is the number of energy companies, there are dozens of large energy companies all over the world so competitive advantage is everything. Come up with a new, cost-effective technology that would replace the others and your company will leave the others in the dust. And you'd better not sit on the new tech because if another company develops it and releases it while you're 'suppressing' you're in serious trouble - the shareholders will hang you out to dry.

• Drunk employees talking careless at some party.
• Enticing away employees by the competition.
• Industrial espionage.

No single company could keep a revolutionary invention secret from its competitors for long. If they don't bring it to market quickly, someone else will eventually find out and do it.

You'll quickly recognize a company that tried to ignore technology by the fact that they are being bought up by another that quickly surpassed it in size.

A NY Times article <- will require a “free” (not counting spam mail increase) subscription to the NYT.
Only a handful of companies want to handle nuclear power. We’re losing suppliers left and right. Why? Not because the PTB are holding back their little “you can play with atoms” card but because N-stamps are getting freaking expensive to keep. It takes a ton of paperwork to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that section of piping is stainless steel SA213 Grade 316L. I mean they have to track the material back to the frigging mine it came from. Less and less companies want to deal with the hassle, especially as nothing new is being built. Now if we suddenly start building again, then companies will start going for their N-stamps again.

Fossil plants, TVA spends a million dollars a day cleaning up the emissions, don’t you think they’d do anything to develop something to let them get out from under that burden?

Andreas: Amen!

[/soapbox]

OK, not wanting to clutter my inbox I found the paper version of the article. Don't mistake an agreement to review with approval of the science. Several "free energy" types have even gotten hearings before Congress. This particular panel is there to review the science of several cold fusion researchers, not to simply say "You're right, we were wrong all along." It's entirely possible that they will simply say BUNK in a polite sort of way.

My guess is that the outcome will not satisfy either side. The panel is likely to come up with a whole series of objections and requests for clarification that the researchers will be unable to answer. At the same time they probably won't totally reject it out of hand. Personally, I don't think the CF gang will have come up with anything new despite their claims to have done so. The final outcome will be no excess heat, no neutrons, no fusion.

I'll be interested in seeing what Bob Park's take on this will be in tomorrow's What's New . He's not likely to come down on the side of the CF gang.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

I would agree with this as I do recall hearing that many of the greatest inventions known to man were in fact conceived by seperate individuals that had no contact whatsoever with each other.

lol, it reminds me of the inventors commercial "Man, if I had only gotten a patent for my spaghetti pot that strains too, I'd be rich!"

Of course.. there's always the corporate espionage and murder theories to explain away why a company would be sitting on a technology, they just kill off the competition--literally--until they're ready to use it and are able to make more money off of it.

Although those would be terribly unscientific and I'd be foolish to lend any credence to them.

People are curious creatures.. when hundreds of billions of dollars are on the line, they do weird things. To be honest capitalism makes me sick, but it makes the world go around.. I've never agreed with the way people seem to idol-worship money, but it's driven people to horrible evils simply to acquire more of it.

Hmmm let's see:

Scenario 1:
Large "Evil Capitalist" Energy Company discovers/gets its hands on a cheap process that produces abundant "clean" energy.

Action:
a) Immediately file for a patent to have exclusive rights to the process
b) Find a way to massify it
c) Sell it till they die

Scenario 2:
"Evil Superpower" discovers/gets its hands on a cheap process that produces abundant "clean" energy.

Action:
a) Since it can finally can get rid of its dependance on foreign oil it immediately gives its discovery to the Large "Evil Capitalist" Energy Company. Continue on with Scenario 1

Scenario 3:
Small, politically unstable "Third World" country in which oil accounts for more than 50% of its exports, somehow (despite chronic underfunding of basic scientific research) discovers/gets its hands on a cheap process that produces abundant "clean" energy.

Action:
a) Patent the process immediately
b) Make a deal with Large "Evil Capitalist" Energy Company
c) Large "Evil Capitalist" Energy Company finds a way to massify the process
d) Large "Evil Capitalist" Energy Company sells it till it dies while the Small, politically unstable "Third World" country gets its cut

Maybe I am missing something but in none of the scenarios I can think of it would be better to hide the discovery

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi