barfbag Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Hi. I am new to this Forum, but have followed this and similar stories. Cold Fusion is now called Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) among other terms. This is because instead of fusing two items (which is reported to occur mildly), several atoms give off parts which then fuse into a third unstable atom which then Beta Decays into IR heat. I know it will take a ruler upside most of the heads here before anyone will look at this seriously but this thread was started in 2011 and a lot more information is now available. The claims of Andrea Rossi in 2011 were so alarming that a lot of CF research was redirected towards Nickel/Hydrogen variations with much success. i.e. Toyota and Mitsubishi are both confirmed to be highly involved in LENR research and Mitsubishi is patenting LENR devices for their ability to pick up stray Gammas from Waste. http://indico.cern.ch/event/177379/material/slides/5 (That presentation occurred at CERN in 2012) The link above shows it, but Toyota used all of their own equipment and supplies to verify Mitsubishi findings. NASA also does budget LENR research (Actually in NASA budget, not rogue employees). Here is a slideshow and a few videos from NASA... http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/NASA/20110922NASA-Zawodny-GRC-LENR-Workshop.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxeKeuh_2Bw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtHR1NCzeKU Dennis Bushnell is The Chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley. HE SAYS LENR IS REAL..... http://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/2012/201205NASA-Dennis-Bushnell-Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reactions-the-Realism-and-the-Outlook.pdf I understand the skepticism. The Coulomb Barrier does not allow this to make sense except with Thw Widom Larsen Theory. Widom Larsen Theory is ... Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) is based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Do not be fooled by the term "Weak Nuclear Reaction", as any nuclear reaction can be millions of times more powerful than a chemical process. There is more than enough energy produced to replace all of our current electrical systems easily.A weak nuclear reaction is any reaction that emits or absorbs a Neutrino. Neutrinos are photons similar to visible light that does not interact with visible matter. LENRS Emit Neutrinos.Collective effects: weak nuclear reaction is one that either emits or absorbs a neutrino, a neutrino is a photon kind of like visible light.neutrinos don't interact much with visible matter. LENR emit neutrinos. You have 2 separate plus charges in these nuclei coulumb barrierweak interactions does not have a columb barrier.you can add up a bunch of energy over a large number of particles. run a current through like batteryloading hydrogen into a palladium lattice like a dry sponge getting saturated surface droplets.Certain metals that readily absorb hydrogen (hydrides), can be saturated with Hydrogen (for simplicity I'm leaving out Deuterium,etc.). This "loading" can be enhanced by running electrolysis (electrolytic cells) or having a vacuum chamber.If you imagined the Nickel as a sponge being filled with water, once the sponge reached its storage capacity, small droplets would build up on the surface of the sponge.This seems to be true of Nickel containing hydrogen. Small pools of theses surface patches (30 microns/pinheads) of the saturated protons (not mentioning deuterons either).Now also there's a film of electrons on the surface of metals that all oscillate together called surface plasmons. High fields result from a breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation via a coupling of Surface Plasmon Polaritons to a collective proton resonance in the metal hydride This means the protons which weigh a lot more than the electrons through the electromagnetic field grab the electrons and shake them back and forth. This occurs directly above the little pinhead sized pools of protons previously mentioned.This reaction creates a big neutron from the interaction between a proton and an electron. An "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron". This term is used a lot, and that is how it is created. This is because they obviously lack the energy seen in other nuclear processes.the neutron is absorbed by nearby nuclei and you won't see it.Subsequent decays release significant energy.Released gammas are absorbed by the heavy electrons which are also there, and convert them to infra red, and LENR is often associated with low Gamma Ray emissions. Just because Gamma rays are not detectable, does not mean the process is chemical. THAT IS JUST ONE THEORY NOT REQUIRING NEW PHYSICS (Dumbed down a bit on purpose). Let's discuss Andrea Rossi again. If you want to see him as a fraud you need look no further than Steven Krivit's "New Energy Times" website. He goes into great stories about how Andrea Rossi was the greatest Fraud of all time in Italy, but a main problem with his critiques are that his website is obviously biassed because he sells LENR books for $170.00/per and his website will become defunct if LENR is realized. - Andrea Rossi was very rich before worth $30 million USD. He did not run to hawaii (his Visa handed to him by The President of the United States), he continued environmental science. If his only concern was money he could have retired rich in his 30's.- When Italys mafia took his waste management business by making his storage illegal (Apparently "The Mafia" reaches as far as Italy (who knew?), and they apparently like to control waste management in many countries) Andrea Rossi faced and beat all his Environment charges, when he could have hid in the U.S.A. (remember the VISA the President Carter gave him.).- All of Andrea Rossi science is common theme of environmental science.- Many scam corporations think to raise money (scam) by selling shares. This scam was common with mining companies. Tell everyone you found a rich vein then sell shares then pay yourself a million in salary and go broke. Andrea Rossi has not sold or tried to sell any shares in Leonardo corporation. This would be easiest scam opportunity.- Andrea Rossi is immigrating to the US where anti fraud laws are extremely tough.- Andrea Rossi funded the first 5 years of this from his own pocket including hiring Focardi. Scammers have a history of using other peoples money for scams, and Andrea Rossi has used his own.Since Andrea Rossi made the Nickel/Hydrogen version of LENR popular in 2011, we have seen many unrelated labs confirm this is indeed possible and very effective. So he is on the right track according to many.These separate and unrelated entities all claim THEY have a working LENR device. Why would so many reputable corporations claim this? Toyota, NASA, Brillouin, George Miley, Patterson cell, Honda, Mitsubishi, Peter Hagelstein, Celani, MFMP, Defkalion, The Athanor creators. That is a dozen just off the top of my head that does not include the ecat device.- He seems to be logically progressing. His best demo was 18 hours on an unstable product and Defkalion bailed on him because he could not do a 48 hour run, but now he is running (confirmed) at much higher temperatuires for longer. If this was fake why did he not fake a 48 hour run with Defkalion or when he was demonstrating in 2011. Are skeptics suggesting he has advanced his fakery in this time?- He has demonstrated publicly in front of many skeptics and geniuses many times during 2011.- He did allow this recent team to evaluate the ecats with very impressive results, and DC input has also been ruled out. We must EITHER think there is criminal conspiracy among very impressive verifying team of scholars with reputations at stake, or accept the reality of the ecat.- Andrea Rossi did publish a paper on this (see his website) in 2010 but it was basically ignored, and all patents for anything suggestive of Cold Fusion have been banned. How would a normal person proceed?-He cannot get patents on this because of ban , but also has secret catalyst that is his advantage in market. How would anyone protect it?Rossi has never been poor. He could have gone to Margaritaville 20 years ago if he wanted to.As Forbes Magazine Mark gibbs says,"This is not, of course, the last word or even one anywhere near the end of this story but unless this is one of the most elaborate hoaxes in scientific history it looks like the world may well be about to change."WHO KNEW THIS?Andrea Rossi has always been an achiever. As a teen he held the world record for distance running for two years in a row.Who here did not know Andrea Rossi was a world champion runner for 2 consecutive years in a competition that required perseverance (24 hour runs).He is likely imho to go down in history as one of the men responsible for clean energy and will save millions of lives. I say we go easy on the guy. Everything bad you read about him will likely be from "NewEnergyTimes". BUT HE IS NOT ON HIS OWN. Yes this thread has continued on over the years and some verification was given on The Rossi device. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 NOTE: Because we all know CF is Pathological Junk Science then we know all the professors and participants in that third party verification must all be: a) part of fraud b) Stupid c) mistaken. So Verifications have no validity unless the Verifying team is believed, but who among us would even bother to look at the credentials of those involved in the testing... for example Hanno EssénFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hanno Essén, born September 27, 1948, is an associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.[1] Hanno Essén received his Ph.D; at Stockholm University in 1979. The thesis was titled Topics in Molecular Mechanics and touched the approximate separations of nuclear and electron motion and the vibrational and rotational motion of molecules. He continued his research as a postdoc at Oxford University, England, for one year, and then two years at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. After some years as a temporary lecturer at the Physics Department at Stockholm University and at the Quantum Chemistry, Uppsala University, Essen got permanent employment as a lecturer at the Mechanics dept at the Royal Institute of Technology in 1988. Since 1990 he has been Director of undergraduate studies (Studierektor) at the Department of Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology. He is member of the Editorial Board of European Journal of Physics since September 2006 and was Chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society for three years (from 19 April 2008 to 2 April 2011). Like Dr. Roland Peterson among others involved in that verification. They say they tested it and it gives unexplainable heat, yet I am sure people here might (will) argue their integrity and abilities. M.I.T. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) has been teaching "Cold Fusion 101" for free at M.I.T. for the past three years demonstrating their LENR device under Peter Hagelstein. There is more that Mitsubishi, Honda, Toyota, MIT, NASA, Rossi that claim to have working LENR devices, Defkalion, Blacklight Power, and many others (over 20 manufacturers) all claim to be doing LENR. We also know that R&D has an iceburg quality in that for every company we know is actively researching something, there are many others researching in private (i.e. Piantelli). The Ecat (Rossi device) is now being verified again with results coming within a few months (July predicted), but will anybody look at those results? Given the fact that over 20 reputable agencies are now behind the same product. Given the fact that all involved seem far from normal scam scenarios (selling shares in propped up companies, etcx.). Given the fact many reputable people say it is real (Dennis Bushnell, Chief Research Scientist at Nasa Langley). I think it is worth examining. However science was still saying The Wright Brothers goal was impossible 4 years after they attained flight. Anyways. I have a lot more information on this as it is a hobby interest. I am a Soil Engineer with science interests. I think it would be foolish to simply dismiss this though as it has picked up momentum since this thread was created. LENR is real imho.
imatfaal Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 I watched and read up on the "verifications" - they were farcical. Much of the large agency involvement I have read about is distinctly not-Rossi and distances themselves from him. Science doesn't work on authority-figures and dogma - it works on demonstrations, experiments, and objective measurement. These three things are all lacking. FYG if you are showcasing a demonstration of a radical new way of making power - how about inviting along some experimentalists who can touch, examine, and measure; not theoreticians who just look on from a distance. I can provide you with a shoebox that will provide power to make steam for a couple of hours - as long as you don't look inside it and examine workings then I can claim it is cold fusion. The crux of the matter is that the theory doesn't hold up and the empirical evidence is lacking. 2
swansont Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 Neutrinos are not photons. Gamma rays are photons, and are most certainly detectable. When you start from fundamental errors such as this, there is little hope the rest has any redeeming value. 2
barfbag Posted June 10, 2014 Author Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) @ imatfaal So your position is that Dennis Bushnell, The Chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley is lying when he states, The current situation is that we now have over two decades of hundreds of experiments worldwide indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input. By any rational measure, this evidence indicates something real is occurring. So, is LENR "Real?" Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse experimental evidence. And, yes - with effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is far from a "Narrow Band" set of physical phenomena. (link was given in last post if you read it) That is a popular stance. Many seem to think their judgements and abilities are greater than The Chief Research Scientist at NASA. NOTE: I did not say LENR is proven. I said I have come to think it is likely based on common sense and the fact over 20 reputable organizations are highly involved with LENR. You said, Science doesn't work on authority-figures and dogma - it works on demonstrations, experiments, and objective measurement. These three things are all lacking. Yet NASA tells us (This quote was on NASA site), -we now have over two decades of hundreds of experiments worldwideindicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input. You said experiments were lacking, yet everday I look at these organizations they are experimenting, replicating, and I would bet a few of the experiments involved measurements. You say, I watched and read up on the "verifications" - they were farcical. Here is just one of those people you just described as "Farcical" Hanno Essén From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hanno Essén, born September 27, 1948, is an associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.[1] Hanno Essén received his Ph.D; at Stockholm University in 1979. The thesis was titled Topics in Molecular Mechanics and touched the approximate separations of nuclear and electron motion and the vibrational and rotational motion of molecules. He continued his research as a postdoc at Oxford University, England, for one year, and then two years at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. After some years as a temporary lecturer at the Physics Department at Stockholm University and at the Quantum Chemistry, Uppsala University, Essen got permanent employment as a lecturer at the Mechanics dept at the Royal Institute of Technology in 1988. Since 1990 he has been Director of undergraduate studies (Studierektor) at the Department of Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology. He is member of the Editorial Board of European Journal of Physics since September 2006 and was Chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society for three years (from 19 April 2008 to 2 April 2011). I am sure he would be delighted you think of his work as "Farcical", however as i said, They say they tested it and it gives unexplainable heat, yet I am sure people here might (will) argue their integrity and abilities. I was correct and someone (Imatfaal) does question their abilities. I am sure he would understand though as he was head of The Swedish Skeptics society. You said, Science doesn't work on authority-figures and dogma - it works on demonstrations, experiments, and objective measurement. Is that how it works? When speaking of inventions, most information is kept mum until patents are protecting the work. Demonstrations mainly serve to attract investors/funding. However: Celani and Hagelstein are at least two who are happy to give free demonstrations of LENR, just visit MIT and ask to see it. Despite the fact that Decades of experiments prove LENR is real (according to papers/patents/books). This is not 2011. This is not one inventor or invention. This is an entire class of technology being done by unrelated labs worlwide. You said, the theory doesn't hold up and the empirical evidence is lacking. If LENR works then how is The Theory not holding up? How is empirical evidence lacking? Most of what we see in this field in Empirical. It is the lab notes and data from many of the LENR organizations (Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Defkalion, MIT, NASA, etc.) that we are not seeing except as patents hit the market. i.e. NASA patent ... http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110255645%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110255645&RS=DN/20110255645 or recent Mitsubishi Patent... http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYnuclidetra.pdf I think that anyone who cannot see Experiments, Demonstrations, and objective measurements are clearly not interested in this possibility to look. This has the potential to be one of the greater scientific breakthroughs of our time. If that does not make you curious enough to at least look at the Data then the problem is with the readers for lack of scientific curiousity. The only way this could be a scam scenario is if over 20 reputable companies all decided to scam the public with the same concept at the same time. It might make sense to a 4 year old. @ swansont, You said, Neutrinos are not photons. Gamma rays are photons, and are most certainly detectable. When you start from fundamental errors such as this, there is little hope the rest has any redeeming value. If you re-read what I said you may notice i also wrote, (Dumbed down a bit on purpose). In regards to the section you are picking upon. If you want to try and explain The Widom Larsen Theory so that it makes sense to some of the lesser educated here go ahead. I tried. I also do not think of Hydrides as a Sponge either. I was trying to simplify it. I suppose maybe they would understand it more if I said, "An electron and a proton combine, through inverse beta decay, into an ultra-low-momentum (ULM) neutron and a neutrino. You also picked up on the sentence, "Just because Gamma rays are not detectable, does not mean the process is chemical." to imply I do not think Gamma Rays are detectable as if I made the error. Can you measure the Gamma Rays from your toaster? No. Well maybe the toaster is not a reactor. People say the Ecat must be a toaster because it does not Emit Gamma Rays. My point was that "Just because Gamma rays are not detectable, does not mean the process is chemical." (note I use same sentence again...) just because nobody can detect Gamma Rays from this reactor does not mean the process is not nuclear. I have linked the Mitsubishi patent where they use LENR to capture Gamma Rays before they can reach detectors. (here it is again...) http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYnuclidetra.pdf ALL LENR is NOTED TO HAVE LOW GAMMA RAY OUTPUT. THIS HAS CONFUSED MANY TO SAY THE REACTION CANNOT BE NUCLEAR. SEE ABOVE PATENT WHERE LENR IS USED TO FILTER GAMMA. Your interpretation of the sentence was flawed, not it's meaning. Of course Gamma Rays can be detected. I am an Engineer, not a preschooler. So when you say, When you start from fundamental errors such as this, there is little hope the rest has any redeeming value. then you are making errors yourself. If you want the official Widom/Larsen Theory try using a search engine, not all of them are dumbed down to the point of comparing neutrinos to photons. Or was that entire post meant as a troll. I am not often sure, especially when my words are twisted. Edited June 10, 2014 by barfbag -4
swansont Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 "Dumbing down" is one thing (simplifying) but there's a point where it's just plain wrong. What you posted about neutrinos being photons is just plain wrong. The gamma statement is just poor communication. "Gamma rays are not detectable" is false. "Gamma rays are not detected" is probably what was meant.
hypervalent_iodine Posted June 10, 2014 Posted June 10, 2014 ! Moderator Note Split from here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60356-cold-fusion-demonstration-definitely-a-hoax-or-merely-almost-definitely-a-hoax/barfbag, please keep the speculations out of other threads and in this area of the forum. Please also note that the use of logical fallacy is against forum rules, so keep the appeal to authority out of it. Do not respond to this note in-thread. If you have a problem with it, please use the report feature or PM a member of staff. 1
barfbag Posted June 11, 2014 Author Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) I responded to the Thread moved category via report button to Moderators, but I want to be clear to any and all that I only responded to a "Science News Thread" concerning LENR and Andrea Rossi. Someone seemed to think that my ON TOPIC POSTS were Hijacking the thread and moved it to speculations even though someone else started the thread back in 2011. The term "Hijacked Thread" in the title of this is misleading and false. If anyone had the originalk thread link they would see I am onew of the few who discusses LENR and Andrea Rossi. Maybe the moderators here do not know the term Hijack, or its meaning. Its normal meaning is when someone goes off topic enough to alter the subject. I stayed totally on topic. The link to former thread is http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60356-cold-fusion-demonstration-definitely-a-hoax-or-merely-almost-definitely-a-hoax/ Anyone familiar with websites, Forums, Threads, might think that posts regarding Andrea Rossi and his Ecat when the OP by schrodingers Hat back in 2011 specifically address the Ecat in first link might realize that I was one of the few in that thread who was on topic. It just sucks to have a moderator who doesn't know the difference and accuses people wrongly. C'est la vie. Is this a website that kicks members who stand up for themselves? I could care less about the LENR being moved, it is speculative. I object to the fact the moderator said I hijacked the thread. That's just moronic. @ SwansonT, Saying, Gamma rays are not detectable" is false I would agree with. But you AGAIN twisted my words out of context (Check last Edit Time). I had said... Just because Gamma rays are not detectable, does not mean the process is chemical. Which is acceptable English in my country, and means precisely what I said it does. Furthermore this sentence was wrapped in a paragraph that lent further meaning. Does it make even more sense in context? Released gammas are absorbed by the heavy electrons which are also there, and convert them to infra red, and LENR is often associated with low Gamma Ray emissions. Just because Gamma rays are not detectable, does not mean the process is chemical. I don't even support LENR. I am just better informed by choice apparently. Okay I am beginning to think there is something to it, but this website has offered nothing but trolls so far. Also... we all teach in our own styles. I think trying to get an average reader to differentiate between Neutrinos and Photons is too advanced for many here, and is information overload. Anybody with access to a Search Engine (Try Google) might be able to find a published paper on it. From what I can see, these are moderator blunders here. Wow! One twists words so it sounds like I'm saying Gamma Rays are undetectable, and another moderator thinks I hijacked a thread for staying on a topic that was from the OP (opening Post of other thread) in the very first link. Dang. This is like my 9th post here and already moderation seems off. I am surprised you did not comment on the term "Heavy Electrons" as it seems to alude to a size change. It is referring to the slowness in momentum. Edited June 11, 2014 by barfbag -4
Endy0816 Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 We deal in evidence here. Meaning peer reviewed journal or a working model. Neither I nor you, should care about speculative patents or papers uploaded elsewhere. If Albert Einstein resurrected tomorrow with word that LENR is real, I would still ask him to show his evidence. That is what Science is about. Even the most brilliant mind can be led astray. Go with the evidence and you don't have to worry(as much) about the human element. On Moderation: Moderators you debate with are not the same moderators who take action in a thread. The original thread was in accordance with the mainstream understanding. What you are presenting is deserving of a thread in its own right rather than continuing on in an older thread. Please don't come in and insult people. Insults period are wrong, made to respected members especially so. If your point is not clear restate it. You lose a debate by becoming hostile, not from clarifying your position. Getting caught in a logical fallacy is another way to lose face. I won't say never use them, but don't use them here where the focus is on the evidence and not appeals to human emotion. Now lets get back on track... Keeping in mind the above, have there been any updates in the last couple of years? Discoveries of new materials, novel physics, etc. 2
Sensei Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 This reaction creates a big neutron from the interaction between a proton and an electron. But free neutron is not proton+electron. Proton energy 938,272,046 eV Electron energy 510,999 eV Neutron energy 939,565,378 eV Subtract sum of energies of proton+electron from neutron energy and you will have missing 782,333 eV
AlainCo Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 The subject is very sensible those days, and E-cat report is not far from publication. To all people who thinks that Cold fusion is not replicated, is debunked, is an artifact, I will simply answer with the scientific method, the good old one : hundred of experiment have been done (one can see that in 1990, >90 groups had reported excess heat, tritium, particles... of course with various level of publication) hundreds of papers (153 of them are counted here )have been published in peer-reviewed magazine, and many in journals specialized in electrochemistry (Journal of electroanalythical chemistry) or in experimental physics (Japanese Journal of Applied Physics. Tho thos who says that it is not in nature, I advise them to read the recent scandat of peer review in those tabloid. Cold Fusion is a chemistry experiments based on calorimetry. Four (yes 4=2+2) written critics were written until 2001 (Read page 5 and the rest in Excess Heat by Charles Beaudette) , by Lewis, Hansen, Morrison, Wilson. A fifth was published by Shanahan recently (but one should notice that the consensus was established mostly on the 4 initial refuted claims). Lewis blamed F&P of being as incompetent in stirring the cell as he was, which was false. Hansen blamed F&P to be as incompetent as him in managing recombination, which was not only reduced but measured. Morrisson critics were more comic than serious (read that article about Titanic and cold fusion myth, of that debate with F&p), and flee like a kitten when his incompetence was exposed. Wilson was the only competent critic, who started by dismissing Hansen and Lewis critics (Morrison is not even wrong). He then introduced correction that F&P introduced in their results. Anyway despite his claims, he could not explain many high energy events, thus confirming and not refuting the Excess Heat of F&P cell. Later, Kirk Shanahan introduced his continuous constant change, never observed in calorimetry which is an old validated science, that was rejected for publication, ans refuted strongly in detail in that article. This refutation is very interesting as it details the great professionalism of what the consensus describe as loose researchers... Factullaty a hundred time less loose than the deified critics. that is all... Cold fusion is real, end of the story. Even Hein,z Gerisher who was one of the top electrochemist of his time at Max Planck Institute, and have rejected cold fusion during the first years, have finally admitted there was many evidence, in 1992. Any other argument based on theory, on negative results is pure anti science as it is well described in that wikipedia erased page. This article by Mickael McKubre of SRI, details well the results, but also the handful of pathological critics against cold fusion, With recent publicity outside the CMNS field it has become increasingly important to clarify in non-specialist terms what is known and what is understood in the general field of so called Low Energy or Lattice Enhanced Nuclear Reactions (LENR). It is also crucial and timely to expose and elaborate what objections or reservations exist with regard to these new understandings. In essence we are concerned with the answers to the following three questions: What do we think we know? Why do we think we know it? Why do doubts still exist in the broader scientific community? In this Foreword to the Proceedings of ICCF15 I lean heavily on the experimental work performed at SRI, and by and with its close collaborators (ENEA Frascati, Energetics and MIT) with a view to define experiment-based non-traditional understandings of new physical effects in metal deuterides. I agree that the name of NASA GRC, SRI, MIT, Shell, CNAM, CEA, Amoco, BARC, Navy NRL, ENEA, CEA, Uni Tsingnhua, Uni Missouri, Texas AM, should not be abused. For example the Ivy league MIT/Harwell/caltech committed awful calorimetry and visible incompetence (like what I report on Lewis and hansen jokes) and misconduct, while a simple science engineer in CEA could reproduce in detail the work of F&P and thus understand why it was good, 8 years after with modern tools. Reading how an insider, the editor of the MIT physics publication, have witnessed how the scientist in that institution was behaving is instructive. We should no trust the consensus, not the institutions, but the method, the experiments, the replication. This is clear that cold fusion is a validated phenomenon, which have still no theory. I disagree with the fashion toward Widom-Larsen theory. WL is an interesting theory in that if propose a conservative approach, based on know physics, on collective effects. It used weak interaction that often have been neglected, because LENr was initially considered as hot fusion. The problems is that after some study it seems not only to be refuted in theory, but not to explain all what is observed, and what have never been observed. The jury is still out but I am pessimistic. In facts around the theoretical challenge of cold fusion observation I have observed 3 approaches : Most physicists blamed the chemist to be incompetent in their core competence, calorimetry, because physicist could not find the expected hot fusion ashes. They thus concluded with the Huizenga theoremPhysicist are perfect, thus if they cannot find a theory to explain an evidence it is that it is impossible. Since it is impossible any observation of the phenomenon is an error, whatever is the quality of the experiment If (like with tritium measurement) an error is impossible, then you can conclude it is a fraud If no fraud is imagined that explain the result, then it is a fraud that we don't imagine Many others physicist solved their incapacity to explain with a concept of "New Physics", like Randen Mills Hydrino ( ), ZPE, quantum gravity... My judgement is that it is as lazy as the mainstream denial. Few but increasing number of physicist simply propose that physics does not change, nor thermodynamics, nor chemistry basics or any known science. LENR is thus simply a complex, local, quantum collective phenomenon in badly understood structure (NAE) inside or at the surface of the hydride. No neutrons or energetic gamma is produced, except from some parasitic reaction at a million less than the main reaction.The last "conservatively open" position is well described by Edmun Storms, the LENR editor at Naturwissenschaften (you can buy his Cold Fusion Review 2010, or see a preprint) . He have written a quick description of his vision for ICCF18 (conference), and I only support the methodology, suspending my judgement on the Hydroton theory to experimental results. Hydroton are anyway interesting in showing that physicist who claim that energetic gamma are required for momentum conservation are simply forgetting that some collective behavior allows dissipation of the momentum in complex coupled quantum systems of particles, like we observe with Mossbauer effect, or super-conduction. This lack of imagination and desperate hubris is laughable for any sub-PhD expert in semiconductors. When you don't know, at least shut up, rather than making a Kelvin Quote. Anyway this is not concerning, in theory, the question whether cold fusion is real or not, as theory is not (except in reality as Thomas Kuhn explains) able to deny reality. I have observed that since the beginning, theoretical question have prevented science to admit reality, have hindered research, have misdirected research, have prevented researchers to look into unexplored roads. This is not a surprise that the real breakthrough came from less academic, or not at all academic, as usual (cf Norbert Alter, Nassim Nicholas taleb, Thomas Kuhn, Roland Benabou). Now the question is what will be the result of the soon to be published 6 month Third-Party independent report of E-cat... This is an industrial and business question. Since it is working on a real phenomenon but on a new technology we have to be careful. Anyway presented experimental evidence, business circumstantial evidence let few doubt that it works enough to prove to even the most stubborn deniers of scientific evidence, that cold fusion or what ever it is producing heat above any chemistry possibility, is real. Question is if it is reliable, efficient, and finally useful, or if more work is required for few months or years. Those interested in that business story (it is no more scientific than Wright Brother, Sputnik or Hiroshima field test) should read the book of Mats Lewan "An Impossible Invention". I'm curious to see what is the plan of Elforsk, Vattenfall, the Chinese government, and Cherokee fund... One should also track the strangely converging work of Brillouin, SRI (McKubre), Navy NRL, and ENEA, who seems to prepare to compete in network. anyway for a scientific forum , the question should be : "it it real" : YES "how it works" : DON'T KNOW. The conclusion should be : INVESTIGATE! (you can maybe say my evidence, 153 papers, are not absolutely, but please admit it requires investigation, or give up you scientist or even your human being diploma) The rest is more an economics and sociology question . What will be the impact of a division of energy cost by an order of magnitude, of the 6 month-1year of investment need to transition the planetary energy mix to 100% LENR. The impact of huge capital losses in all competing energies, of public credibility lossesof academic science, of green policies, the impact on climate policies becoming useless/solved, the way the incumbent operators will try to capture that economic rent to protect their existing rent.... This is a question for an economic forum, and a politics/sociology forum.
swansont Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 Does it make even more sense in context? … I am surprised you did not comment on the term "Heavy Electrons" as it seems to alude to a size change. It is referring to the slowness in momentum. Not really. The idea that a reaction gives off photons but they aren't detected (or can't be detected) does not make sense, because the volume has a surface, and surely some the photons are emitted outward where there is nothing to interact with. They can't all be absorbed. If one was claiming gammas are undetectable in a reaction because there are no gammas, that would be one thing, but this claim is that gammas are present but undetectable. That sounds more like magic, and one of many reasons why people are wary of the results here. Something is obviously going on, but the specific claims about the processes don't jibe with known physics — you apparently have neutrons and gammas getting re-absorbed with 100% efficiency, which doesn't happen anywhere else in physics. That kind of discrepancy still hasn't been nailed down, which is why I think the field has never gotten much traction. Heavy electrons is similar to terminology I've seen in reference to electrons undergoing interactions. One can model them as having an effective mass that is larger than a bare electron mass. But "slowness in momentum" makes no sense; momentum is not a measure of speed alone and a "heavy" electron would have a large momentum. Size has nothing to do with it. Mass isn't size. The whole phrase "Released gammas are absorbed by the heavy electrons which are also there, and convert them to infra red" is fraught with buzzwordy hand-waviness and seemingly devoid of actual physics.
AlainCo Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 This critic of WL by saying screening gamma so efficiently is solid.This is also the position of Edmund Storms who judge that given the experimental data showing that neutron and gamma are below one million less than expected from hot fusion ration, no mechanism can be perfect enough to shield. Even slow neutrons can be detected as part of them are thermalized by interaction with the hot lattice. So No neutron are produced in the main reaction, and the excess energy is transmitted to a quantum object that allow mild energy emission (X-rays, e-UV) instead of energetic gamma. Mossbauer effect (judged impossible before observed) as he said is inspiring, but not applicable because of the different energy scale. One reason Storms oppose WL is also that it is an improbable of disconnected phenomenons, and Edmund Storms talks of "Conservation of Miracle", as the Occam idea that if improbable things can happen (if evidence ask it), unless really forced by evidences you can assume two improbable unrelated situation don't happen. anyway, talking of theory is a bad idea until we have a scientific community that stop living in groupThink (See Roland Benabou model of Grouopthink through Mutual Assured Delusion) believing all is refuted despite total absence of any scientific evidence to support their claim. please forget theory. I really advise people to read the book Excess Heat of Charles Beaudette, which refocus the debate on calorimetry. Theory is premature. First is to sole the epidemiological/psychiatric/sociological problem that Thomas Kuhn have well described, showing that anomalies are denied until there is a theory.
Sensei Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 The conclusion should be : INVESTIGATE! Investigation would require free access to ecat or other such device.. Reading somebody articles about them, is not enough.
AlainCo Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 Investigation would require free access to ecat or other such device.. Reading somebody articles about them, is not enough. Real scientist (I mean not people who think that if they don't understand it does not exist) can prove heat is produced in a black box without needing to open a box. This is applied science. now there is no doubt the problem is not scientific but bad will. anyway from the rumors, the box have been opened. Note that there is no doubt that cold fusion is real not only because of the calorimetry, the isotopic analysis, the lack of any non-humoristic critic, but also even if it is useless because it have been done in white box and replicated from scratch. Incapacity of some people like, S Pomp, to admit blackbox test is fascinating. But I think it is an epiphenomenon of the general initial groupthink around collective delusion against cold fusion. Just a question, does Japanese have inspected the inside of the A-Bomb before it vitrify Hiroshima, to be sure it was real ? I a way the rough calorimetry, and the rough geometry, allowed the witness to judge it was not a normal chemical bomb. I am not sure that people here understand the absurdity for an engineer point of view of someone denying calorimetry done outside because he cannot open a box... By the way note that the box was open, but no chemical analysis was done, just visual inspection showing there was no pink unicorn hidden inside to explain the anomalous heat. In a way if it was a pink unicorn inside, producing more heat than any chemical process, I will have no problem in making it industrial. Who cares on the theory if the heat is there. back to the facts.
Sensei Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) Real scientist (I mean not people who think that if they don't understand it does not exist) can prove heat is produced in a black box without needing to open a box. This is applied science. Metal piece can be heated from long distance many ways. I would not fully trust tests performed inside of company building. Especially if they would refuse moving it outside of building. In this test they're using two, just two, measuring devices, IR camera and Power analyzer.. http://ecat.com/news/ecat-ht-validated-by-top-physicists C'mon! Where is Geiger counter? Where are shields protecting measured item from all sides against external radiation..? etc. etc. Note that there is no doubt that cold fusion is real not only because of the calorimetry, the isotopic analysis, What isotope is used in ecat? ps. How much does ecat company pays you.. ? ps2. Natural abundance of isotope used by ecat device is 3.63%. Does ecat company will take care of providing 100% clean isotope by them self.. ? Provide fuel to their device? Edited June 11, 2014 by Sensei
swansont Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 The behavior of scientists trying to show their discovery is legit is different than scam artists trying to raise funding. "This produces heat" does not explain how the heat is produced; scientists want to know the mechanism. "Not a normal chemical reaction" is not the same statement as "this is cold fusion". It's a very different burden of proof. If these people don't want to be called crackpots, they should stop behaving as crackpots do.
barfbag Posted June 11, 2014 Author Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) Wow Alainco!!! Those were impressivelly written and intelligent comments. You seem to at least keep current on your science, but these guys wanted to trash the LENR thread. No skin off my nose, I won't look like an idiot when they finally accept LENR here. @ Endy 0816, You say, You lose a debate by becoming hostile No. People lose debates by being idiots. I commented on a thread I found searching the term LENR as I keep up with the papers, books, and conventions of this topic. Within a short time frame someone came by that selected a few key phrases from my post and twisted the words to make them sound different from their meaning. The person took this phrase, Released gammas are absorbed by the heavy electrons which are also there, and convert them to infra red, and LENR is often associated with low Gamma Ray emissions. Just because Gamma rays are not detectable, does not mean the process is chemical. .and totally twisted my words out of context. Does the above Paragraph look like I think Gamma Rays cannot be detected? No. I am clear in that paragraph. Yet the person twisting my words wrote Gamma rays are photons, and are most certainly detectable. When you start from fundamental errors such as this, there is little hope the rest has any redeeming value. Now if someone cannot comprehend English enough to distinguish this then they have little business calling themselves educated. Now instead of an apology from this person they have now challenged The Widom Larsen Theory as if I wrote it. IT IS NOT MY THEORY. LOOK IT UP ON GOOGLE. However let's look at your last post... Something is obviously going on, but the specific claims about the processes don't jibe with known physics At least this person acknowledged there is progress in this field. LENR is real and it is funny some moderator thought speculations was the place for this. No reading for the educated I guess. However: The Widom Larsen Theory does NOT require new physics. There are other Theories. THE QUANTUM RING THEORY by W. Guglinsky http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=462 is a more radical idea for handling The Coulomb Barrier. NOTE: This also is not MY Theory. There are many floating around. All they know for sure is excess heat is being measured. So my words were twisted and thrown back in a troll post suggesting I thought Gamma Rays were undetectable when any Grade School child can tell you it is possible. Of course I am going to take offense. The other reason I took offense is the Title of this thread. The Moderator does not understand the term "Hijack Thread" so totally made a mistake by suggesting this thread was Hijacked. Click on the link http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60356-cold-fusion-demonstration-definitely-a-hoax-or-merely-almost-definitely-a-hoax/ This was the Thread I alledgedly Hijacked, and yet it deals with THE EXACT TOPIC (ECAT/ROSSI) of that thread. So Endy 0816, Maybe you like people twisting your words backwards and implying you are an idiot. Maybe you want to be accused of Hijacking a thread when you were the only person on the thread on topic. I saw the first one as a typical Troll, and the second one is just lack of understanding. Maybe Hypervalent Iodine is English Second Language. I cannot imagine anybody that behind on LENR research or that does not understand term "Hijack" coming from an English country. So ... I care more about sticking up for what's right than I care about them. Now.. @ Swansont, You said, Heavy electrons is similar to terminology I've seen in reference to electrons undergoing interactions. One can model them as having an effective mass that is larger than a bare electron mass. But "slowness in momentum" makes no sense; momentum is not a measure of speed alone and a "heavy" electron would have a large momentum. Size has nothing to do with it. Mass isn't size. The whole phrase "Released gammas are absorbed by the heavy electrons which are also there, and convert them to infra red" is fraught with buzzwordy hand-waviness and seemingly devoid of actual physics. I will compliment you for actually discussing the topic instead of Trolling this time. Maybe this NASA patent will help you understand your above statement better. http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20110255645 [0006] Heavy electrons exhibit properties such as unconventional superconductivity, weak antiferromagnetism, and pseudo metamagnetism. More recently, the energy associated with "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR) has been linked to the production of heavy electrons. Briefly, this theory put forth by Widom and Larsen states that the initiation of LENR activity is due to the coupling of "surface plasmon polaritons" (SPPs) to a proton or deuteron resonance in the lattice of a metal hydride. The theory goes on to describe the production of heavy electron that undergo electron capture by a proton. This activity produces a neutron that is subsequently captured by a nearby atom transmuting it into a new element and releasing positive net energy in the process. See A. Windom et al. "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surface," European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields, 46, pp. 107-112, 2006, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,893,414 issued to Larsen et al. Unfortunately, such heavy electron production has only occurred in small random regions or patches of sample materials/devices. In terms of energy generation or gamma ray shielding, this limits the predictability and effectiveness of the device. Further, random-patch heavy electron production limits the amount of positive net energy that is produced to limit the efficiency of the device in an energy generation application. or http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/SR35913widomlarsen.shtml http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml As for, But "slowness in momentum" makes no sense; momentum is not a measure of speed alone and a "heavy" electron would have a large momentum. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2005/2005WidomA-UltraLowMomentum.pdf should cover it... Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions in metallic hydride system surfaces are discussed. Weak interaction catalysis initially occurs when neutrons (along with neutrinos) are produced from the protons which capture “heavy” electrons. Surface electron masses are shifted upwards by localized condensed matter electromagnetic fields. Condensed matter quantum electro-dynamic processes may also shift the densities of final states allowing an appreciable productionof extremely low momentum neutrons which are thereby efficiently absorbed by nearby nuclei. No Coulomb barriers exist for the weak interaction neutron production or other resulting catalytic processes @ Swansont still, You also commented that fraudsters try to raise money for fraud. Rossi has denied many fundraising opprtunities and has not sold shares in Leonardo to the public (I'd have bought a few). You did not read the Opening Post at all did you? Maybe I should copy/paste it here. NASA is not fundraising their LENR project. It is likely not a scam scenario. Mitsubishi is not fundraising with their LENR device. It is likely not a scam scenario. Rossi funded 5+ years and hired staff (i.e. Focardi) to help aifd this project out of his own pocket. He could make minimum $100k a year working for anyone and has many defense contracts, etc. Peter Hagelstein at MIT is not fundraising for his device, and teaches cold Fusion 101 every year for free. George Miley got LENR off of Patterson Cell, but now has his own LENR device, but his is now complete and for sale. I could go on HUGE LIST. If you want to be anti-LENR or Anti-Rossi look no further than Newenergytimes.website. Steven Krivit stands to lose his LENR book trade and website if LENR comes to fruition so he likes to dig up dirt and false allegations against Rossi. I am unsure why The Moderator (Hypervalent Iodine) thinks LENR is speculation. I suppose it fits here in some respects as no Theory is yet agreed upon, but it really shows a lack of education (which should be ongoing) in this field of study. That moderator among any others on fence over this should read ... http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83658-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-thread-hijack-split/?p=810307 Note to Alainco, I believe I have seen you commenting in Ecat World, I am new here myself. Edited June 11, 2014 by barfbag -3
imatfaal Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 ... I am unsure why The Moderator (Hypervalent Iodine) thinks LENR is speculation. I suppose it fits here in some respects as no Theory is yet agreed upon, but it really shows a lack of education (which should be ongoing) in this field of study. That moderator among any others on fence over this should read ... http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83658-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-thread-hijack-split/?p=810307 Note to Alainco, I believe I have seen you commenting in Ecat World, I am new here myself. ! Moderator Note barfbag Stop commenting on Moderation please. This topic has correctly been moved to Speculations - in the end the idea may be correct or it may be rubbish; but it is surely speculative. Also please stop referring to those holding alternative points of view as idiots; even if the allusion is in passing. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread. You can report this note if you feel it unfair everyone A little less rhetoric in defence of your claims and a few more links to experimental data, methodologies and even videos would be good. Frankly the claim of dogmatism is so stale as to be counterproductive; the staff here are regularly told we are establishment lackeys hell-bent on clamping down on any new ideas in science - mostly by those who wouldn't even recognise an equation let alone know how to create a mathematical model. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread. You can report this note if you feel it unfair
swansont Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 Within a short time frame someone came by that selected a few key phrases from my post and twisted the words to make them sound different from their meaning. The person took this phrase, . and totally twisted my words out of context. Does the above Paragraph look like I think Gamma Rays cannot be detected? No. I am clear in that paragraph. Yet the person twisting my words wrote Now if someone cannot comprehend English enough to distinguish this then they have little business calling themselves educated. Now instead of an apology from this person they have now challenged The Widom Larsen Theory as if I wrote it. IT IS NOT MY THEORY. LOOK IT UP ON GOOGLE. While I have sympathy for people who write things and have other people misunderstand them, it's also the case that writing needs to be clear, and if the writing is ambiguous, blaming the reader doesn't solve anything. I don't see how me apologizing because your statements weren't clear helps anything. No gammas are detected. I get it. The point is that gammas should be detected if they are produced. One should focus on that problem instead of semantics. The justification for not detecting gammas is weak; if they are produced and you are set up to detect them, the absence of detection is best explained by the absence of gammas. Further, you can't run away from your words if this is your explanation of the effect. (If it's not your explanation, i.e. a quote from elsewhere, that's a problem of another sort; plagiarism is a no-no). I can't reconcile your claim of "twisted my words out of context" and also that "have now challenged The Widom Larsen Theory as if I wrote it" Did you write the text in question or didn't you?
AlainCo Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 @barfbag I undesrtand your enthusiasm, but we are not talking of a technical question, as if there was a clear reality. The work of Thomas Kuhn, and even of Feyerabend (a troll that raise true questions), show that if there is a reality, this reality is most of the time not accessible to the scientist mind, who is human. If you live in the paradigm, the groupthink, that state that cold fusion have been debunked, that any evidence is an error or a fraud, and that there is no need of any evidence of artifact or fraud, because cold fusion supporters have to provide evidence (which they do, but since no evidence deserve to be read, there is no evidence), there is no other possibility than be 100% (not 99% as it would requires investigation) sure any LENR claimant is a fraud, and that reading any data is absolutely useless. This is the current APS/Wikipedia position. No data is meaningfull, except the 3 failed experiments, the few books avoiding any result after 1989. If like me you were doing something else in 1989 and discovered the domain in 1993, while many new serious positive papers were available, the denial of cold fusion is as stupid as people denying general relativity when using a GPS. This image is the metaphor of the paradigm change, and the problem of impossibility to see the evidences when you are locked into your paradigm. What allows one image to win over the others, after simple conservatism, is if one of the paradigm is fruitful. Cold fusion until recently have mostly brought insults, defunding, ridicule, broken careers, new unsolved questions, so practically it is not fruitful. People like ENEA (The italian DoE, like Elforsk, or CEA, or BARC, all having reproduced LENR) with SRI and NAVY NRL have improved, made more reliable, and understood the unreliability sources in F&P experiments, but there is still no theory, thus no hope to give advantage in the academic world. The other way to make that paradigm where cold fusion is real is to make it practical, like a tea kettle. Most lab experiments done in wet context are useless because the temperature don't allow efficient production of electricity. The breakthrough came from an initial idea of Fralick89 in NASA GRC (see their work), replicated by Uni Tsinghua, Biberian and Nasa GRC 2008, of gas permeation. People like Miley and Piantelli tested not only powder in hot hydrogen atmosphere, but Nickel-Hydrogen reaction... It was hard to accept even by LENR scientist who were stuck to Palladium-Deuterium in wet cell paradigm. As you can see, the paradigm shift is recursive, and there is nobody more tolerant in a paradigm battle. Unless you have materialistic advantage, the incommensurability of paradigm is evident. This incommensurability is consequence of self realizing beliefs in system where peer-opinion dominate reality (see stupidity based organisations). Many people here, as Beaudette have explained simply never read the least data, or with a so biased way that their competence (Jed Rothwell describe well how it is impossible that competent people support the books of Morrison or Taubes) were distorted. The usage of negative experiments as refutation of a phenomenon is so clearly a fallacy (the absurdity of that argument is well described by McKubre or Kowalski) that it is evident there is a cognitive problem. As Rossi have well said "In Mercatu Veritas", meaning that when people will make more money with the cold fusion paradigm than with the Wikipedia consensus, the incommensurability will disappear, symmetry will be broken, and the Schrodinger cat of epistemology will get out of his box, dead or alive. This process have been observed about Wright Brothers fable, the X-ray hoax, the quasi-scientists Nobel, and even the HTSC footnotes (which is very instructive for LENR, as both are material science). Now I understand that with slight information, huge bias, and massive character assassination on the media, the technology of Cherokee fund, invented by Rossi, tested by Swedish DoE/EPRI Elforsk, and in process of transfer to China, make people uncertain... It is rational. What is not rational is to be sure that it is a scam while many data shows it is simply a working device on a proven science. About people who say you can transfer energy from a room full of physicist toward a metalic cylinder without them having the capacity to detect the fraud, I think you should make a patent of it. Microwave should burn the physicist who played around alone with the reactor, IR too, magnetic field required would cause havoc in the rooms, the phones and the instruments. Tweking the power supply with DC or HF would be detected by accident or with a 5$ voltmeter... This is typically the fable of Stephen pomp, that Bo Hoistad bashed with some talent (in italian, and translated). I have found better argument on 9/11 truther conspiracy site. Even fraud theory need evidence, at least a coherent physical theory. Moreover there is a gap between finding a remote possibility of fraud, and being sure of it. As I say here, the problem is not the evidence, it is the incapacity for most minds to change of paradigm. It led naturally to Mutual Assured Delusion, and Roland Benabou explain that groupthink is growing as a member of a group will suffer from the delusion of his colleagues. In a way, peer-pressure/peer-review/committees, as Alvesson and many scientists (Nobelized or retired) explain, increase the problem rather than correct it. The current situation when attack are more and more desperate are caused and not slowed by the growing evidences (you see that in religious radicalism when religion fade away). Benabou clearly explain why it happen from his tiny model. The groupthink try to protect it's group from admitting the expected huge losses. So what to do? If you are sure that Cold Fusion is a fraud, I can do nothing to convince as all data will be ignored or deformed... wait for the factory visit in few years. If you are curious skeptic, suspecting cold fusion to be an error, you are doomed like ex-skeptic Gerischer, like Essen and Küllander (of Swedish Skeptic Society), to be a believer if you simply read the book of Charles Beaudette (a WMD against bad consensus), and then follow your skeptic instinct and investigate, check, cross check, like what Beaudette did... Is it a duck or a rabbit... we have two hemisphere to be able to switch between the two incommensurable paradigms, but academic world is a winner takes all. Don't be afraid, the end is near and history will be rewritten by the losers as Taleb and Kuhn explain. Cold fusion will be discovered in 2015 at MIT, with first replications at Caltech and Harwell. Wikipedia already prepare the change. -4
Sensei Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) You seem to at least keep current on your science, but these guys wanted to trash the LENR thread. No skin off my nose, I won't look like an idiot when they finally accept LENR here. Can nuclear reaction occur at room temperature? Yes, it can. It's well known. And it's used all the time by neutron detectors and neutrino detectors. Deuterium bombarded by free neutrons (from neutron decaying radioactive isotope) is changing to Tritium, and Tritium is decaying after a while to Helium-3 emitting electron and anti neutrino. Chlorine-37 that absorbed neutrino with energy higher than 0.814 MeV is changing to Argon-37 and emitting electron. Argon-37 is unstable isotope, and will capture electron, and will be back Chlorine-37. Annihilation of electron and positron will be detected by device. You're keeping saying LENR this, LENR that. IMHO you should always specify which reaction you have in mind. But this would require to have some real knowledge.. Edited June 11, 2014 by Sensei
swansont Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 People have tried this in copper, which according to Widom-Larsen, should turn into nickel. That seems like an easy thing to test. Put in pure copper, run the system, and see if you get nickel in your sample as a result. Because this is science, you can even predict how much nickel you should get, and see if your results match. Has anyone done that test? Are the results published anywhere? Because it seems to me that this is straightforward and pretty unambiguous, and a much better avenue than the tap-dancing that's going on, and defending the lack of solid results by talking about groupthink, etc.
AlainCo Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 You are right the definition is important. Mine is quite restrictive, and focus on F&P effect and the one that seems related, no others. I follow the definition of Edmund Storms of what is cold fusion as he synthetise in "Status of Cold Fusion(2010)" review published in naturWissenschaften. The unique process is proposed to involve a reaction between deuterons, resulting in 4He and small amounts of occasional tritium and neutrons without significant harmful radiation. In addition, reactions can apparently occur between deuterons or protons and various target elements to produce changes in elemental and isotopic compositions, which is called transmutation. All of these reactions are thought to occur on or near to the surface of certain special materials containing hydrogen isotopes. In contrast to hotfusion, the process requires very little energy beyond that supplied by the normal environment, although some benefit results from additional energy being applied in various forms. The process has been initiated using several different methods. Initially, F-P used special palladium as the cathode in an electrolytic cell containing D2O+LiOD. Similar results have been reported using low-voltage gas discharge in D2, low-voltage plasma generated in D2O, bubble collapse on various metals in D2O using ultrasound, and exposure of various special materials to deuterium gas at modest pressure. Even various single-cell organisms have been reported to produce nuclear products when grown in D2O as well as in H2O, but in the latter case with less evidence supporting the claims. Basically, it is nuclear reaction inside hydride, involving much less neutron and gamma emission than in hot fusion. This exclude muon-catalyzed fusion, fractofusion, accelerator fusion with keV energy. This include F&P experiment of Pd-D electrolysis producing He4, tritium, and however few neutrons and gamma (millions times less than hot-fusion). It include also variations of the metal and hydrogen isotope like Ni-H, and some similar less replicated results (W-H, Ti-D, NiCu-D) with some producing more radiation, and some more heat. It include variation on the process, with plasma electrolysis (Mizuno), gas permeation (Fralick,Iwamura, Celani, Piantelli, Rossi), and various shapes like bulk, membrane, hollow cathode with black palladium (Arata), treated wires (Celani), powders (Miley, Pianteli, rossi), thin films (Iwamura&Toyota replicating). i includes variation on the "excitation" from usual electrolysis, current, plasma, magnetic field, laser, heat shock, heat... Basically I will say that it is all named LENR that is assumed not to be possible (thus not funded by DoE IDEA) but which have produced according to the experimenter the most important quantity of fusion energy, else the H-bomb. Even the sun have less energy density than PdD electrolysis (not a real challenge since sun energy density is low compared to a fission reactor - E-cat claim is about same as fission). The problem that F&P effect as some call raises into physic is that it produce more heat than anything can do without the "required" radiation. the reaction you cite are not intense enough to compare, and are not controlled. Ed Storms propose it is p-e-p aneutronic fusion in a collective behavior context able to deliver required energy to the reacting nucleons and then able to absorb the produced energy before it is dissipated by smaller quanta. Why not but we need more evidence. However this give a research program. Note that if nuclear physics is useful to find the theory, to accept the reality of cold fusion what is needed is mostly knowledge in calorimetry, in chemistry, and why not in logic. Saying it is impossible will not change the evidences that it is real. Saying that if often fails, cannot change the evidence that it sometimes works. Cold fusion is not a physics experiment, but a chemistry experiment. It is however a material science (physicist) nightmare to explain.
Sensei Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) People have tried this in copper, which according to Widom-Larsen, should turn into nickel. That seems like an easy thing to test. Put in pure copper, run the system, and see if you get nickel in your sample as a result. Because this is science, you can even predict how much nickel you should get, and see if your results match. Swansont, exactly reverse... According to Rossi: Ni-62 + p+ -> Cu-63 + 6.12 MeV I have checked it, from energy point of view, correct. So the only problem is repelling of proton with Nickel. Here are mine calculations: But Ni-62 has just 3.63% abundance. See last line: Ni-62 + n0 -> Ni-63 + 6.84 MeV (possible from energy point of view, and has no problem with repelling charges) But Ni-63 is unstable isotope. And will decay to.. Cu-63 Ni-63 -> Cu-63 + e- + Ve So basically what Rossi takes as fusion with proton, might be multiple stages reaction, and possible in mainstream physics. Edited June 11, 2014 by Sensei
swansont Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 Swansont, exactly reverse... If it's absorbing protons, yes. I read a claim where you get neutron absorption which then causes a decay, where you'd have Cu —> Ni. The salient point is you can do a fairly simple test to see if the effect is occurring.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now