The nuclear reactor in your basement

Feb 19, 2013 by Bob Silberg

How would you like to replace your water heater with a nuclear reactor? That's what Joseph Zawodny, a senior scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center, hopes to help bring about. It would tap the enormous power of the atom to provide hot water for your bath, warm air for your furnace system, and more than enough electricity to run your house and, of course, your electric car.

If your thoughts have raced to or Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, let me reassure you. Zawodny is not suggesting that you put that kind of reactor in your house. What he has in mind is a generator that employs a process called Low-Energy . (The same process is sometimes called Lattice Energy Nuclear Reactions. We'll just call it LENR.)

So what is LENR and how might it one day fill all your energy needs without risk of blowing up, melting down, or irradiating the neighbors?

Nuclear energy in a nutshell

The nuclear generators which currently provide some of the world's electricity use a type of fission in which a very heavy nucleus (meaning one with lots of protons and neutrons) such as uranium breaks up into two or more lighter nuclei, releasing energy in the process.

The sun and all the other stars use , in which two light nuclei (such as those of hydrogen) fuse together in an environment of very high temperature and pressure which overwhelms the mutual repulsion of their positive charges. Again, energy is released in the process—even more than in fission. We know how to use fusion in hydrogen bombs, but so far we lack the technology needed to harness it for more civilized purposes.

In the 1980s, two scientists named Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced that they had developed a "cold fusion" process that could create fusion through chemical means, without the high temperature or pressure of stars and bombs. There was no theory to explain how that could be possible, and other scientists were unable to reliably reproduce the experiments, so cold fusion lacked credibility for most physicists. Some scientists have continued working on this idea though, and they sometimes call it "LENR." But this process is not what Dr. Zawodny is exploring.

"There are a lot of people who are trying to just build something without understanding anything," Zawodny said. "It worked for Edison and the light bulb, but it took him a long time and that was a simple system. This is very complex. And if they make something that just barely works, and accidentally one in a thousand works really, really well, it's going to take down a house with their trial-and-error method."

The nuclear reactor in your basement
In theory, a metal (gray) holding hydrogen ions (purple) as a sponge holds water (called a metal hydride) can provide one potential fuel for LENR.

"Several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted," according to Dennis Bushnell, Langley's chief scientist, in an article he wrote for NASA's Future Innovation website. This, he wrote, indicates that "when the conditions are 'right' prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released." But it's also an argument for the approach that the Langley researchers favor: master the theory first.

The epiphany

"For NASA Langley," according to Bushnell's article, "the epiphany moment on LENR was the publication of the Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction LENR Theory," which was published in 2006. According to Zawodny and Bushnell, this theory provides a better explanation than "" for the results which researchers have obtained over the last couple of decades. And it might explain much more than that. At a meeting of the American Nuclear Society in November 2012, the theory's co-developer, Lewis Larsen, speculated that LENR may occur naturally in lightning—not only on present-day Earth, but also in the primordial cloud of gas and dust that became our solar system. If true, LENR might solve a mystery uncovered by NASA's Genesis mission, that the pattern of oxygen isotopes on the sun differs greatly from that of Earth.

The theoretical underpinnings of LENR are complex, but the basics are pretty easy to understand. Instead of splitting an atomic nucleus apart or ramming two mutually repelling nuclei together, Widom-Larsen's LENR simply offers a very slow-moving neutron to a nucleus. According to Zawodny, nuclei presented with sluggish neutrons slurp them up like a hungry Texan with a bowl of firehouse chili. But like many a chili consumer, the nuclei can find that their indulgence makes them, shall we say, unstable. And while I am too polite to continue the chili metaphor past this point, the nuclei do find that emissions relieve their distress.

With rare exception, Zawodny said, a nucleus which has lapped up one too many neutrons spits out an electron, which it gets by breaking up one of its neutrons into an electron and proton (and an anti-neutrino, but we can ignore that). So where it once had an extra neutron, making it an unstable isotope of whatever element it was, it now has an extra proton instead, which makes it a more stable isotope of a different element. This process releases energy which, hypothetically, can be used to generate electricity.

Concepts for an LENR-driven spaceplane developed by NASA and Spaceworks.

According to Zawodny, the challenge in making this work lies at the beginning of the process, generating those ultra-slow neutrons without expending more energy than the process yields. There are several hypothetical versions of the procedure, but here's a good example:

We start by processing nickel so that it can hold hydrogen the way a sponge holds water. The hydrogen is ionized, meaning that each hydrogen atom has its electron stripped away, leaving only a proton.

Electrons in the metal are made to oscillate together in such a way that the electromagnetic energy stored in tens of thousands of them is transferred to a relative few, giving them enough energy to merge with nearby protons (the hydrogen ions) and form slow-moving neutrons. Those neutrons, as we noted, are immediately captured by nuclei of the metal atoms, setting in motion a chain of events which turns the nickel into copper and releases useful energy.

The 1 percent solution

One percent of the nickel mined each year could meet the world's energy requirements at around a quarter of the cost of coal, according to estimates cited by Bushnell.

There are other interesting options as well, like turning carbon into harmless nitrogen, the main component of our atmosphere. "I don't know what could possibly be cleaner than that," Zawodny said. "You're not sequestering carbon, you're totally removing carbon from the system." In fact, this would be a great way to dispose of some toxic carbon compounds, such as those that were used in electrical transformers. "It's just a nasty sludge that everyone doesn't know what to do with," he said. "That's perfect fuel, in theory."

So what's the hitch? It's creating the right oscillation. "It turns out that the frequencies that we have to work at are in what I call a valley of inaccessibility," Zawodny said. "Between, say, 5 or 7 THz and 30 THz, we don't have any really good sources to make our own controlled frequency."

But solving that problem can wait until the theory is better understood. "From my perspective, this is still a physics experiment," Zawodny said. "I'm interested in understanding whether the phenomenon is real, what it's all about. Then the next step is to develop the rules for engineering. Once you have that, I'm going to let the engineers have all the fun."

And he is sure that if the Widom-Larsen theory is shown to be correct, resources to support the necessary technological breakthroughs will come flooding in. "All we really need is that one bit of irrefutable, reproducible proof that we have a system that works," Zawodny said. "As soon as you have that, everybody is going to throw their assets at it. And then I want to buy one of these things and put it in my house."

Explore further: Watching the structure of glass under pressure

More information: More information about energy-related innovations at NASA and Caltech is available at climate.nasa.gov/EnergyInnovations/

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

On the origin of life's most crucial isotope

Oct 12, 2012

Since the Big Bang, the universe has been evolving. From the formations of simple protons and neutrons to the wide breadth of elements and molecules known today, it is ever growing in complexity and variety. And now, nuclear ...

New type of nuclear fission discovered

Dec 06, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Nuclear fission, or the splitting of a heavy nucleus, usually results in symmetrical fragments of the same mass. Physicists attribute the few known examples of fission that is asymmetric to ...

The atomic nucleus: fissile liquid or molecule of life?

Jul 30, 2012

A new view of the nucleus that unifies its liquid and molecule-like aspects has been put forward by a team of researchers from France.  By making an analogy with neutron stars, the researchers have for ...

Recommended for you

Watching the structure of glass under pressure

16 hours ago

Glass has many applications that call for different properties, such as resistance to thermal shock or to chemically harsh environments. Glassmakers commonly use additives such as boron oxide to tweak these ...

Inter-dependent networks stress test

19 hours ago

Energy production systems are good examples of complex systems. Their infrastructure equipment requires ancillary sub-systems structured like a network—including water for cooling, transport to supply fuel, and ICT systems ...

Explainer: How does our sun shine?

20 hours ago

What makes our sun shine has been a mystery for most of human history. Given our sun is a star and stars are suns, explaining the source of the sun's energy would help us understand why stars shine. ...

User comments : 133

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2013
There ya go Zephyr, time to get to work.
axemaster
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2013
I thought this was pretty interesting, so I looked up Joe Zawodny. He discusses the topic on his private blog, and it's a lot less enthusiastic there.

http://joe.zawodny.com
Greg_1heather
3.1 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2013
So if I can go from nickle to copper or from carbon to nitrogen, why can't I go from lead to gold and heat my house
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2013
As an Energy Engineer who works in this field, I can say the practical development & implementation of this technology is not the biggest hurdle to overcome, we already use a form of it on board satellites we send to the outermost regions of the solar system where using solar cells to recharge on-board batteries are useless, instead we use fission technology to maintain stable power generation in those satellites.

The biggest hurdle with adapting fission as "point of use" technology will be regulatory. Look at the politics involved in the implementation of "fracking technology" used in shale oil extraction, it is fraught more with politics than the science of developing it to make it environmentally practical for useful application. As fearful as some people are of "fracking", when the same ones hear the word "nuclear", this will so cower politicians that the technology may never be realized.

antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
There are other interesting options as well, like turning carbon into harmless nitrogen,

Carbon isn't a problem (carbon is incredibly useful in many areas). Carbon dioxide is problematic. But I don't see how one could have a hydrogen-carbon dioxide crystal needed (and still have it be solid at room temperature). And since Nitrogen doesn't bond with oxygen that crystal would blow apart pretty quickly.

It's certainly a bit more scientific than cold fusion. But somehow it still strikes me as iffy.

Also how exactly does this create a sustaining reaction? The slow neutron is lost and no new slow neutrons are created. Unless the emanated electron carries out more energy than the slow neutron carries in (and why should it?)

The only process for net energy gain is the movement a step up the stability chain (towards iron). But is that enough to get usable energy out of this?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2013
The biggest hurdle with adapting fission as "point of use" technology will be regulatory.
No it is the potential for radioisotopes in the hands of bad people. Widom larsen involves a sort of fusion/fission process but it is not what youre talking about.
Zawodny. He discusses the topic on his private blog, and it's a lot less enthusiastic there.
His disclaimer, along with his original video, has been around for months and months.

How come nobodys mentioned rossi?
http://www.e-catw...testing/

April maybe?
It's certainly a bit more scientific than cold fusion. But somehow it still strikes me as iffy.
And if AA had been paying attention and following the many links provided here, he would have known all about NASA and widom larsen for months now. So sad.
EyeNStein
1 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
How did this bound hydrogen get ionised to protons? Hydrogen in hydrides GAIN a second electron to form the anion and become more like helium-Basic chemistry 101. The implausibility of a free electron gaining almost 1MeV to then turn a proton into an unstable free neuton is also rather high.
Still keep trying guys: One day you may discover a process that works and you can expain to a sceptical scientific community.
Job001
1.3 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
Greg:Adding one neutron increases atomic numbers, C>N, Ni>Cu, Pb(lead)>Bi, Pt>Au(gold), so you could not make gold from lead this way, lead would make bismuth, see a periodic table and atomic numbers. Additionally, a lot of energy is theoretically produced with very little of the final element, roughly a million times chemical energy. Thus, a house or auto might be run for a lifetime on a few ounces. The price of gold is mostly due to energy, so the final product scrap gold would be worthless.

DoubleD
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
... more like helium-Basic chemistry 101.


Turning a positively charged hydrogen ion into a negatively charged hydrogen ion is in no way, shape or form making it "more like helium" Now, adding a proton to the nucleus will make it "more like helium." Actually it will just make it Helium. It's called fusion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2013
Still keep trying guys: One day you may discover a process that works and you can expain to a sceptical scientific community.
Why not try a little research before trying to second-guess scientists after having only read one small article? They have spent months and months investigating this, right?

Dont you think they may have considered your loophole? Isnt this at least worth looking into before you spout?
http://newenergyt...#summary
dschlink
4 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2013
Repeatability is probably the greatest LENR hurdle and Mitsubishi Heavy Industry has developed an approach that is nearly 100% reliable. Toyota has duplicated the experiment. Granted, we are talking weeks to transmute nanograms of materials, but it works.
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
My geiger counter is rattling very strongly on the copro-scale.
maryyugo
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2013
This is nonsense. Zawodny has never published a paper in which he tested any LENR technology and showed it to work.

At present, LENR is an unproven technology in which researchers argue endlessly over tiny and unreliable results.

The only exceptions are Andrea Rossi and Defkalion Green Technologies which have all the indicators of being investor scams. It seems these people fool gullible scientists by using deliberately phony measurement methods.

Nobody has properly demonstrated robust LENR in which they produced dozens or hundreds of watts for days or weeks. That's what's required before basement reactors can be considered.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (16) Feb 19, 2013
This is nonsense. Zawodny has never published a paper in which he tested any LENR technology and showed it to work.
Nobody said he did. Widom and larsen have.
The only exceptions are Andrea Rossi and Defkalion Green Technologies which have all the indicators of being investor scams.
Correction: they have absolutely no indicators of being scams. We should know in a month or 2.
Nobody has properly demonstrated robust LENR in which they produced dozens or hundreds of watts for days or weeks. That's what's required before basement reactors can be considered.
...Therefore, it is obviously nonsense? Theyre working on it. We'll have more info soon. Relax.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (20) Feb 19, 2013
Correction: they have absolutely no indicators of being scams. We should know in a month or 2.

You are aware that this "month or two" has been going on for more than a decade with Rossi?

...and that his 2011 and 2012 presentations produced not even hot air?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (16) Feb 19, 2013
Correction: they have absolutely no indicators of being scams. We should know in a month or 2.

You are aware that this "month or two" has been going on for more than a decade with Rossi?
During this time he has apparently 1) fabricated many big units, 2) demonstrated them to people, 3) secured funding, 4)gotten orders, 5) developed options, 6) and is in the process of securing independent peer review. 7) independent scientists have developed a detailed theory which may explain his ecat and 8) you guys dont seem to complain when this sort of thing happens with the hubble or the iss or the webb or with any military weapons system I can think of (oh thats right - you do.)

This is a science site. Scientists usually wait for some tangible evidence before passing judgment. I know, skepticism makes one feel good and authoritative and all.
maryyugo
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2013
As far as I know, Widom and Larsen have produced only a controversial theory. They've never done experiments which produce large amounts of thermal energy for prolonged periods. The problem is that nobody has if you discount the huge claims by Rossi and Defkalion.

Are you familiar with "free energy" related investor scams by Carl Tilley and Dennis Lee? By Steorn? You can google them. The pattern is to take money from investor based on huge claims and no independent testing. Sometimes there are demonstrations but they either don't do what the proponent says or they are rigged. Defkalion is an example of the former and Rossi of the latter.

Then, it drags on for years with no independent tests. Rossi claims he has customers but ALL are anonymous. He claims he's making a huge robotic factory to make millions of reactors but there is no trace of this factory anywhere. No permits, no workers, no site, nothing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 19, 2013
...and that his 2011 and 2012 presentations produced not even hot air?
Not so. They produced both support and skepticism. And much additional funding. They were as revealing as could be expected given that the man is developing an apparently easily-copied tech which could be worth billions to him and his investors.

You would be acting exactly the same way.
As far as I know, Widom and Larsen have produced only a controversial theory.
Well you dont seem to know an awful lot do you? Free energy scams have no bearing on this one way or the other. They were saying these exact same things about the bloom box, which works.
but there is no trace of this factory anywhere. No permits, no workers, no site, nothing.
Link please or I will have to declare this bullshit.
maryyugo
4.4 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2013
Not so. They produced both support and skepticism. And much additional funding. They were as revealing as could be expected given that the man is developing an apparently easily-copied tech which could be worth billions to him and his investors.

You would be acting exactly the same way.
No, I wouldn't. It's ridiculously easy to independently test robust energy claims like Rossi's or Defkalion's -- they claim tens of kilowatts for long periods-- and it can be done without revealing any intellectual property. Similarly, Rossi claims to have sold more than a dozen megawatt power plants but all his clients are anonymous. Rossi's original "plant" is still in an empty wharehouse in Italy. Rossi's only other known location is a small condo in Florida.

Rosssi and Defkalion's pattern of behavior is not that of someone protecting intellectual property. It's the pattern of someone taking investors for a ride and cheating them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2013
The problem is that nobody has if you discount the huge claims by Rossi and Defkalion.
"ENEA, SRI and NRL have been involved within review programs in the US and in Italy. The main task was to demonstrate, on the basis of signals well above the measurement uncertainties and with a cross check, the existence of the excess of heat production during electrochemical loading of deuterium in palladium cathodes. The target was achieved and the existence of the effect is no longer in doubt."

-This in addition to the many govt agencies and private researchers who ARE getting results.
Rosssi and Defkalion's pattern of behavior is not that of someone protecting intellectual property. It's the pattern of someone taking investors for a ride and cheating them.
Sorry but for some reason I have to think youre not qualified to make that decision in any meaningful way.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2013
No, I wouldn't. It's ridiculously easy to independently test robust energy claims like Rossi's or Defkalion's -- they claim tens of kilowatts for long periods-- and it can be done without revealing any intellectual property.
Robust peer review is apparently going on at this very moment, with results to be published soon.
Similarly, Rossi claims to have sold more than a dozen megawatt power plants but all his clients are anonymous. Rossi's original "plant" is still in an empty wharehouse in Italy. Rossi's only other known location is a small condo in Florida.
Again, without documentation this seems to be unsubstantiated bullshit to me. But Im sure its fun to say.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2013
Otto: "Correction: they have absolutely no indicators of being scams. We should know in a month or 2."

Can I pin you down on that one Otto - are you saying that by april the 19th we will know conclusively that the e-cat works? I am marking the day on my calender.
maryyugo
4 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2013
Since a public E-Cat demonstration in October 2011—his most recent, and probably his last—he has issued a steady stream of contradictory statements and unfulfilled promises. He claims to operate a state-of-the-art E-Cat factory in Florida, but the only property he owns there is a condo in Miami located a few blocks from the beach. He has no verifiable customers or investors. He has severed ties with business partners and reneged on every agreement to test the E-Cat. Josephson recently put a disclaimer on his YouTube video saying he doesn't endorse Rossi's E-Cat. Some of Rossi's most steadfast supporters—mostly starry-eyed bloggers on the alternative energy beat—have stopped astroturfing for him online.


And much more damning evidence against Rossi:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box?page=1
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2013
Regarding Rossi:

If the Government could actually prove any form of fraud they would have already arrested Rossi.

I suspect that if the government has it's way, the technology will be covered up, so that they can use it to power lasers, rail guns, and the main engines on submarines, aircraft carriers, and other ships...

Consider, if it's real and the technology leaks, any nation could use this to power it's military. It would be like another cold war.

Further, under 'capitalism', the mining companies and trading companies will just raise the price of Nickel to 3 or 4 times it's present price, "because they can" (same excuse all corrupt capitalists give,) and we'll all be right back in the same boat as we are now regarding energy security and energy prices.
physpuppy
1 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2013
One glaring omission - Proton Electron != Neutron. You'll need an anti-Neutrino or you violate lepton conservation.

Or is this supposed to rely on a natural flux of these little guys and when they knock an electron and a proton together hopefully an anti neutrino will just happen to be at that location?
maryyugo
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2013
If the Government could actually prove any form of fraud they would have already arrested Rossi.


It takes a long time to build a fraud case. Rossi was arrested and jailed in Italy for the Petroldragon synthetic oil from trash fraud. He also bamboozled the DOD out of $2 million for non-working thermolectric devices in 2004. I guess DOD didn't charge him with fraud because it's hard to prove and also because they were embarrassed.

http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf

By contrast to his arrest history for felony fraud in Italy, Rossi has never produced a single product or device that works, far as I can tell.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
Otto: "Correction: they have absolutely no indicators of being scams. We should know in a month or 2."

Can I pin you down on that one Otto - are you saying that by april the 19th we will know conclusively that the e-cat works? I am marking the day on my calender.
First, let me see if I can tell you when boeing will fix their 787 batteries or whether the Webb will launch on time or not... Nope nothing there either.

@Lrrkrrrr
If the Government could actually prove any form of fraud they would have already arrested Rossi.
Which govt? The Italian govt? Rossi is Italian. He works in italy. Maybe Mossad will snatch him.

Italy does prosecute scientists for not predicting earthquakes so who knows?
AlainCo
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013

Best evidence that rossi is not running a scam is that he is now supported by Aldo Proia, someone with a CV in energy, and investors. Track him, not Rossi. Rossi do like Wright brothers.

About nickel, the consumption would be ridiculous (few %), if W-L is true. But today it seems that Nickel is not a fuel, but a matrix/catalyst, and 1hydrogen the fuel.

Forget about widom larsen theory, too early to decide. LENR is plagued by theory consideration. check facts.
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2013
By contrast to his arrest history for felony fraud in Italy, Rossi has never produced a single product or device that works, far as I can tell.
The question indeed isn't if some Rossi is fraud or not - but if cold fusion is working or not. If it's working at least a tiny bit, it has a meaning to research it like any other unexplained yet phenomena. And if it's working even better, it should be researched like practically feasible technology. Mr. Rossi has absolutely anything with scientific approach here - he never published anything about cold fusion - whereas duo Piantelli and Focardi published many articles in official scientific journals of Italian Academy of Sciences.

Therefore if mainstream physics establishment ignores the cold fusion, it doesn't ignore A. Rossi - but it ignores the honest work of humble scientists, which is pissing me.
AlainCo
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2013
Hey Maryyugo, happy to see you bash rossi here... and defkalion soon probably? The world is small ;-)

the patent of Rossi for Petroldragon have been sold to US companies, and is used today.
Corruption in waste industry is a fact in Italy. Rossi have been discharged of most accusations because the accusation were due to a posteriors change of regulation, and it was illegal to condemn him.
The story is very complex, and notice how he was hired by DoD despite his accusation... His TEG failure look pathetic, but you can interpret it as overoptimism, like what many start-up do...

Rossi for sure behave like a clown, but like the Wright brothers too.
I don't trust one work he said, but Aldo Proia can be trusted because he will be toasted by his investors if Rossi is wrong.

Note also that Defkalion have a different profile. their investors are Greek expatriates tycoons, and Xanthoulis is an economist.
LENr is real, NiH is powerful, so business is logic.
AlainCo
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2013
Repeatability is probably the greatest LENR hurdle and Mitsubishi Heavy Industry has developed an approach that is nearly 100% reliable. Toyota has duplicated the experiment. Granted, we are talking weeks to transmute nanograms of materials, but it works.


Reliability seems to be addressed today by Brillouin (validation by SRI), by Defkalion (Validation by Michael Nelson), and some experimental devices are reliable : SPAWAR co-deposition, Hagelstein NANOR.
ENEA at ICCF15 have found new factors, crystallography and thus impurities, that explain more cause of failure and success...
You can read their paper.
Once again, discussing theory is premature.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
I do perceive the involvement of NASA in cold fusion with mixed feelings. On the one side it's indeed good, that the cold fusion is researched officially, on the second side many people do perceive the NASA's LENR endorsement as a spin cycle to attempt to clean their hands of past suppression. It's no secret for me, that new secretary Ernest Moniz is responsible for cold fusion research suppression in the past and I don't think, we can teach an old dog to new tricks. Even the effort of NASA on the field of cold fusion is still rather symbolical and it appears like the private initiative of Zawodny for me. For example, there are no attempts for replication of twenty years old Piantelli & Focardi experiments
AlainCo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2013
Also how exactly does this create a sustaining reaction? The slow neutron is lost and no new slow neutrons are created. Unless the emanated electron carries out more energy than the slow neutron carries in (and why should it?)

The only process for net energy gain is the movement a step up the stability chain (towards iron). But is that enough to get usable energy out of this?

The fact is that it work. Maybe you don't have read it, but even National instruments succeed in replicating double blind LENR in 10 labs. (see Stefano Concezzi claims, NI Big physics boss).

Don't focus on theory. facts first. Moreover no QM is broken by LENR, just lack of imagination , and usual approximations.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
Rossi for sure behave like a clown, but like the Wright brothers too
I do perceive every mention of Rossi as an attempt to cover twenty years standing suppression of cold fusion. Because the scientific research of cold fusion didn't start with Andrea Rossi, it even didn't continue with him, because Rossi never published anything useful about it. But for deniers of cold fusion it's indeed important to pretend, whole the existence of cold fusion depends on never published research of some private subject for to cover the fact, the mainstream physics did anything in this matter during last twenty years. In brief, the case of Andrea Rossi is just an immanent part of mainstream deniers propaganda, which is trying to cover its own incompetence and absence of research in this matter - no less, no more.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2013
he is sure that if the Widom-Larsen theory is shown to be correct..
If the scientists would be really interested about practical applications of cold fusion (which they aren't, because most of them are already involved in research of alternative methods of energy production/conversion/transport and storage), they would start with attempts for replication of simplest twenty years old experiments of Piantelli, who didn't use any terrahertz frequencies and he still managed to demonstrate the COP > 3. NASA approach just demonstrates the attitude of mainstream physics, for which no phenomena is real, until they have a working theory for it. We do need any theory for having practical cold fusion in the same way, like we need any theory for development and usage of high-temperature superconductors, but for mainstream physics parasites it's indeed advantageous to pretend the opposite.
steven_krivit
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
Article not written by Physorg. This is a copy of an article originally written for and published at NASA'S Climate Web site. It was written by a former NASA public relations writer, now a freelance writer.

What I find strange is to see Zawodny suggest that the Widom-Larsen theory is not well-understood. He seemed to understand it well enough to co-author a chapter on it with me for the 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia.

Perhaps the May 24, 2012, New Energy Times article "NASA and Widom-Larsen Theory: Inside Story" can shed some light.

The article begins: "Yesterday, the NASA Langley Future Innovation Department uploaded a short video clip in which NASA said that it wants to test and confirm the Widom-Larsen ultra-low-momentum neutron theory of low-energy nuclear reactions. New Energy Times made some inquiries, and the inside story suggests a very different picture."

Article continues:

wp.me/p2Gp5f-DU

NotAsleep
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
The most public unconditional funding for the project that I know of has come from Dick Smith, who offered to give Rossi $1M if he could prove "cold fusion" was a real thing:

http://www.scribd...02pgvmoa

"I do not want to know how the unit operates, nor to have a share in the profits from any sales. My satisfaction will from from knowing that if the unit is successful, then some of the worlds greatest problems-- especially in relation to climate change-- will be solved."

Guess who hasn't had to pay Rossi $1M yet?
Argiod
1 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2013
Absolutely not! I do NOT want my basement to turn into a mini-Fukushima if it floods. No nukes in MY house!!!
And, what about the following considerations:

What sort of license will I need to own, fuel and operate one of these?
What will it cost to dispose of the nuclear waste it will produce?
Will I have to fortify my home like Fort Knox and post armed guards to keep terrorists from stealing my nuclear material?
Will garbage trucks and dumpsters start sporting nuclear warning signs?
What if my basement floods? Will I have a mini-Fukushima under my house?

The whole concept of a nuclear reactor in my home fills me with total dread. What are these people thinking?!!!

ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
I find strange is to see Zawodny suggest that the Widom-Larsen theory is not well-understood
And is it really understood? The Widom-Larsen theory relies on hypothetical concepts like the "heavy electrons", "ultra-low momentum neutrons" which were never observed somewhere else. I'm not saying, W&L's theory is correct or not - but it would be always better to have a theory based on experimentally well supported concepts. That is to say, it's always better to have some theory than nothing - but to say, everything is clear there is rather enthusiastic underestimation of situation.

Argiod
1 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2013
"I do not want to know how the unit operates, nor to have a share in the profits from any sales. My satisfaction will from from knowing that if the unit is successful, then some of the worlds greatest problems-- especially in relation to climate change-- will be solved."

Yeah, and Tesla and Tucker said much the same thing. Only problem is, it would put some very wealthy and powerful people out of business. And we see what they did to those two geniuses...

ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
I know of has come from Dick Smith, who offered to give Rossi $1M if he could prove "cold fusion" was a real thing
Why Dick Smith didn't offered his reward to Piantelli and Focardi, who published thirty articles about it during last twenty years? If nothing else, A. Rossi didn't use any public money for his research, so he is not obliged to reveal anything.
lengould100
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
Absolutely not! I do NOT want my basement to turn into a mini-Fukushima if it floods. No nukes in MY house!!!
And, what about the following considerations:

What sort of license will I need to own, fuel and operate one of these?
What will it cost to dispose of the nuclear waste it will produce?
Will I have to fortify my home like Fort Knox and post armed guards to keep terrorists from stealing my nuclear material?
Will garbage trucks and dumpsters start sporting nuclear warning signs?
What if my basement floods? Will I have a mini-Fukushima under my house?

The whole concept of a nuclear reactor in my home fills me with total dread. What are these people thinking?!!!


Take a few sedatives, then learn to read LOL.
Anda
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
Alain, you seem to be Otto.
Waterripples, I'll have to call you ColdWaterFusionRipples or something like this from now on
canuckit
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2013
More reading, Piantelli European Patent EP 2 368 252 B1 on LENR Process, titled "Method for producing energy and apparatus therefore", granted January 16, 2013.

http://www.22pass...1%5d.pdf
meerling
1 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2013
So if I can go from nickle to copper or from carbon to nitrogen, why can't I go from lead to gold and heat my house

It would be Gold to Lead since you are going from lighter to heavier.
That's why you can't go from lead to gold.
Oh well, it's nice to dream. :)
lengould100
3 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2013
So if I can go from nickle to copper or from carbon to nitrogen, why can't I go from lead to gold and heat my house

It would be Gold to Lead since you are going from lighter to heavier.
That's why you can't go from lead to gold.
Oh well, it's nice to dream. :)

Actually Platinum (atomic # 78) to gold (# 79). Good luck with the economics.
Lexi_Mize
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2013
Cold fusion is more soap opera than science. There are more pariahs, pawns, pundits and petty panderers of pernicious parables embroiled in this escapade than in any "As the Nuclear World Turns" ever created. And the same band of groupies can be found following along, spitting at each other, cursing and cussing. Myself included. It's like a vile hobby. One I tire of, as I'm sure we all do.

There must be something more productive to while away our time don't you think? What if we all took 6 months off from this sad pathetic distraction? Yeah, when I think about all the time and energy I spent dreaming and writing about a LENR world, bah, what a bust. A poor assessment of priorities on my part I'd have to say.

Think about it won't you all. How much caustic vitriol have you mustered and spewed over the last 18 month on this topic? Was it worth all that effort? Given what there is to show for it - I somehow doubt it.

Ober
1 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2013
Just watch the price of Nickel, and see if it goes through the roof.... Then you will know if there is something to this or not!!!

I speculate that there might be something going on, but reliability is still the problem. Therefore I wouldn't invest in Nickel in my lifetime. But PLEASE let me be wrong!!!!!!
Egleton
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2013
It peeves me when people abuse the noble philosophy of skepticism.
A skeptic believes the evidence.
What shall we call someone who puts his fingers in his ears and sings " La, La. I can't hear you."?
I know. A Troll.
Job001
1 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2013
One theory is that this report is a phony propaganda piece meant to promote FUD(Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). Evidence for:
1. Huge atomic symbol of a home, phony visual fear by FALSE radioactive fission association.
2. Anti CF Shills with obviously FALSE FUD agendas.
3. Ignorant Proposal to make gold from lead FALSE ties; fusion and fission and discredited alchemy.
4. Maryyugo known FALSE shill associating CF with fraud, felony jail, scam and never can do blah blah.
5. Benni FALSE associations politicians, fear, fission, hurdles, blah, blah to CF.
6.EyeNStein phony science FALSE Einstein "Expert" 1 MEV free electron skeptical science nonsense.
Conclusion:Strong evidence exists that this piece is FALSE FUD propaganda. The evidence that LENR(Yields 10% to 16X low heat yield lab confirmed) has progressed 10 times faster than hot fusion(still ZERO yield) since it was named in 2003 (10 yr vs 50 yr) with ZERO government funding is now overwhelming. See LENRproof.com
AlainCo
1.4 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2013
If some here is simply curious I've written an executive summary on LENR with recent story.
Zawodny is a fan of Widom-Larsen, like Mr Krivit. I was too, but now I'm Gödelian agnostic. We need more data. All serious QM-compatible theories seems incomplete and interesting.

For those who think I'm Otto, I'm just AlainCo, the tech watcher of lenr-forum ... When I says something, normally you find a trace there...
There is much data available, and no hope to convince Mary Yugo or alike. Roland benabou in "groupthink: collective delusion in organization and market" and "patterns of denial" describe a good model. Or course, a good denialist will bend the conclusion to reject inconvenient fact and justify others delusion... No hope.

As usual all will be done by the market, neither by science community, nor by government. This is coherent with the innovator theory of Norbert Alter, with real history of steam engine, plane, radium. No reason to blame anybody except our naiveness.
EyeNStein
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2013
So how many cold fusion nuts does it take to change a light bulb?

None: they believe a free perpetual energy bulb is just round the corner.
This article is full of the worst kinds of pseudo science. I'd sooner believe in reversing polarity on the phase inducers to save the galaxy in 45 minutes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2013
Alain, you seem to be Otto.
Waterripples, I'll have to call you ColdWaterFusionRipples or something like this from now on
Hold on, I thought you were otto. According to scummy trolls anyways.

Hey how about this??

"Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works Shooting for 100 MW Fusion Prototype by 2017"
http://www.e-catw...by-2017/

-Rumor or well I dont know?

This will make aurora much cheaper to fly.

But I really dont trust anything that guys with ponytails have to say. Sorry.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2013
Oop I see it is a hot fusion variant. Well maybe it will work-
AlainCo
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2013
It seems there are people aware of what happens in mainstream world.

Does anybody know why Purdue University is partner of University Of Missouri to organize International Conference on Cold Fusion n°18 this year ?
http://iccf18.res...ance.php

For University of Missouri I know it is Robert Duncan who after having been hired as skeptic by CNBC 60Minutes, to debunk the cold fusion claims of Energetics Technology, have turn to be convinced and support LENR research at Uni Missouri...
For Purdue there is Yeon Kim,
http://www.physic...im.shtml
but he does not seems to be so powerful in Purdue...

is there some recent change ? pure opportunism, or new balance of power there ?

thanks for help.
_traw_at
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2013
Ah, great fun.

If anyone gets this idea to work, as verified by three independent and unconnected testing labs, and then needs a way to market it in this world, contact me.
Be warned, my consulting fees will be high. And they are to be paid in advance.
Until then, have a good day. :-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2013
Ah, great fun.

If anyone gets this idea to work, as verified by three independent and unconnected testing labs, and then needs a way to market it in this world, contact me.
Be warned, my consulting fees will be high. And they are to be paid in advance.
Until then, have a good day. :-)
Sorry home depot apparently beat you to it
http://www.e-catw...reement/
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2013
From the note by Rossi
IMPORTANT: WE DID NOT REACH ANY AGREEMENT WITH HOME DEPOT YET!!!


Oh my. All-Caps and multiple exclamation marks. The sure signs of insanity.
maryyugo
5 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2013
"Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works Shooting for 100 MW Fusion Prototype by 2017" http://www.e-catw...by-2017/


This is nonsense. It has nothing to do with Lockheed Martin or Skunk Works. It's just one person's idiotic claims. He has accomplished nothing. He's just beating the bushes for money.

As usual, the believers get fooled, bamboozled and flummoxed.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2013
http://www.popsci...ou-think

Interesting. I wouldn't put PopSci into the "crank" category. Would anyone else?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2013
Interesting. I wouldn't put PopSci into the "crank" category. Would anyone else
This story is about hot fusion reactor and it may serve just for detracting the investors from cold fusion research.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2013
From the note by Rossi
IMPORTANT: WE DID NOT REACH ANY AGREEMENT WITH HOME DEPOT YET!!!


Oh my. All-Caps and multiple exclamation marks. The sure signs of insanity.
Italians can be very passionate people. Give him a break. He's under a lot of stress at the moment.
This is nonsense. It has nothing to do with Lockheed Martin or Skunk Works. It's just one person's idiotic claims. He has accomplished nothing. He's just beating the bushes for money.
Ahaahaaa you ARE a numbskull arent you? 'Charles Chase of aerospace giant Lockheed Martin's Advanced Development Programs' is the one giving the talk. GOOGLE the program.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2013
Interesting. I wouldn't put PopSci into the "crank" category. Would anyone else
This story is about hot fusion reactor and it may serve just for detracting the investors from cold fusion research.
?? Not everything is about preventing LENR development. Plasma research is essential to the future. The (spurious) promise of cheap energy is a convenient expedient. Plasma research is important enough to retard development of energy production alternatives which would take away the one major reason for the public to continue spending billions on it.

This is perhaps the most promising hot fusion machine:
http://www.generalfusion.com/
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2013
This is perhaps the most promising hot fusion machine
Pure nonsense, sorry.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2013
This is perhaps the most promising hot fusion machine
Pure nonsense, sorry.


Not as non-sensical as cold fusion claims, sorry.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2013
This is perhaps the most promising hot fusion machine
Pure nonsense, sorry.
How so dreamweaver? I know, its not very scientific.

"The closest to a potential reactor scheme is what General Fusion is proposing."
—R. Kirkpatrick, Los Alamos National Laboratory [Popular Science, January 2009]

-You object to the asgardian nature of it? Molten metal, choruses of hammers creating an ungodly din, lighting thermonuclear fire?

Mjolnir was forged within a star. This apparatus seems only fitting.

AND theyre from the great white north. Canadians arent stupid you know. They only seem to be a little slower than the rest of us.
http://nextbigfut...ull.html
http://www.fusenet.eu/node/300
AlainCo
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2013
Why does few skeptics talk of defkalion and brillouin... is it cherry picking because rossi have no credibility if you refuse to observe Aldo Proia (using indirect evidence is hard for some)

why nobody talks of how Oriani papers have been rejected AFTEr successful peer-review in nature. why report 41 was rejected because "no room" (to revolution physics)... about MIT fraud , and Caltech loose calorimetry... about CEA confirmation in 97, about NASA GRC 89 experiment replicated in 2008...

it seems critics have bad information.

about theory before engineering, It seems clear people forget that most inventions were engineered much before theory.
Few success and much rewriting of history made the myth that theory cause invention, while it simply help to optimize them.
Taube in, Anti-fragile explain how that myth is painted over reality.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2013
Otto: "This is a science site. Scientists usually wait for some tangible evidence before passing judgment. I know, skepticism makes one feel good and authoritative and all."

Correct on the first point - incorrect on the second. Scientists do depend on tangible evidence. However - in the absence of evidence - scientists hold on to their wallets. On the second point - skepticism is not about feeling good - it is about protecting yourself from bad ideas - hence the requirement for tangible evidence. Your response to me asking if I could pin you down on your 2 month claim speaks volumes. It is your mind, and your money - waste them if you wish.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2013
skepticism is not about feeling good - it is about protecting yourself from bad ideas
There are 2 types of skepticism;

1) generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts

2) an overall approach that requires all information to be well supported by evidence.

-The first is an attitude, the second is a discipline. The 2nd respects evidence, the first may generally disregard it.
Your response to me asking if I could pin you down on your 2 month claim speaks volumes.
-And I think your asking was in the spirit of the 1st kind of skepticism and not the 2nd.

Evidence for the efficacy of LENR, and of what rossi is doing specifically, gives us increasing confidence that, despite delays, this peer review may support something of value.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2013
Your response to me asking if I could pin you down on your 2 month claim
-And this was not MY 2 month claim, but rossis prediction from the ecat world link I posted, based upon the current peer review process.

Your skepticism prevented you from following the link to this evidence I presume.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2013
it seems critics have bad information
In my experience the PO critics have no information, their only source of education are the public forums, like this one. This is second article about cold fusion here at PhysOrg (after twenty years of research !) and the discussion about it is corresponding.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2013
Anyway, isn't it interesting, how the people are willing to build nuclear fusion reactor of even thirty meters high ITER from scratch without even bothering to replicate few dollars experiment with nickel wire heated in the hydrogen? This is the power of the belief in theory. It will speak for itself for historians of science.
Job001
1 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2013
Anyway, isn't it interesting, how the people are willing to build ITER from scratch without even bothering to replicate few dollars experiment with nickel wire heated in the hydrogen?


What is illustrated is that huge investments and regulatory controls are barrier entries for potential market competitors. This makes the potential utility market a natural monopoly or oligopoly of high potential profits. LENR does not have sufficient extractive profit advantages and would result in lower commodity level profits.

The universal denial bias correlates with perfection to the extraction mentality. If hot fusion or other new fission facilities are installed it is the same old story - high profit extraction of the over exploited customer. Obviously it's not about science, it's about extraction profit potential and jobs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2013
This is perhaps the most promising hot fusion machine:
http://www.generalfusion.com/

-You object to the asgardian nature of it? Molten metal, choruses of hammers creating an ungodly din, lighting thermonuclear fire?


-Another way to look at this - it is a steampunk fusion reactor. It looks like a locomotive. It is clanky and makes a lot of noise. It even produces steam.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2013
The organization of large scientific projects like the LHC or ITER is based on long term contracts, where all private companies have profit guaranteed with governmental organizations under insurance of international capital. So you can be sure, you'll get your money no matter whether the whole project succeed or fail, or you'll get huge compensation anyway. The larger project, the safer and more lucrative business for all parties involved.
it is a steampunk fusion reactor
Such a principle is not apparently suitable for steady-state energy generation. And it will not beat the Lawson criterions anyway: the higher temperature, the shorter time of each pulse. Whole the hot fusion principle is pretty nonsensical conceptually: in neutral atoms the electrons represent an ideal shielding of Coulombic barrier. If it's so, why to heat the atoms, ionize them and strip of this shielding? Shouldn't we attempt to surround them with as most of electrons of possible instead?
Q-Star
3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2013
The organization of large scientific projects like the LHC or ITER is based on long term contracts, where all private companies have profit guaranteed with governmental organizations under insurance of international capital. So you can be sure, you'll get your money no matter whether the whole project succeed or fail, or you'll get huge compensation anyway. The larger project, the safer and more lucrative business for all parties involved.


If only that were true,,,, if it were true we'd be enjoying the science from the SSC by now. Instead of begging time from CERN.
EyeNStein
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2013
Millions have been spent by governments and companies, including NASA, in failed attempts to reproduce the LEFR claims. They have been tested thoroughly by real scientists, neither cooks or sceptics, using the best equipment, and found to be empty. I would hardly call that scepticism or ignorance, just persuit of the truth.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2013
Chemistry World editorial encourages scientific debate about 'Bad Science' and cites cold fusion during it...
Millions have been spent by governments and companies, including NASA, in failed attempts to reproduce the LEFR claims.
We spend billions in search for gravitational waves, which are useless in addition. And not it turns out, that the failed attempts were fringe experimentally (cold fusion still works) or just plain intentional frauds designed to discredit cold fusion.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2013
-And this was not MY 2 month claim, but rossis prediction from the ecat world link I posted, based upon the current peer review process.

You said - "we should know in a month or two" - those are your words - wow - the people on this board who say stuff - and then immediately disclaim themselves - it is enough to make a skeptic crazy. I still have April 19th marked in my calender.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2013
You said - "we should know in a month or two" - those are your words - wow - the people on this board who say stuff - and then immediately disclaim themselves - it is enough to make a skeptic crazy. I still have April 19th marked in my calender.

Don't get your hopes up. We tried the same thing last year twice. Early that year and before the in december (the times when Rossi announced big demonstrators).
Both times the cold fusion guys on this board were certain that it would be the final breakthrough demonstration, and whatnot.

And both times we asked that if it WASN'T that they would then please shut up spamming the comments section (at least in articles that aren't specifically about LENR or cold fusion)

As you can see that didn't turn out well...
At this point it's like religion. Believers will not be swayed - no matter how much their belief lacks evidence.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2013
"Don't get your hopes up." I wont - I know the deal. You are right - it is just like the guys last year waiting for the Armagedon to start. They woke up the next morning and recalculated the date. Steorn energy is still bilking people out of investment cash. They had a grand demonstration in London one day - all the cameras were there - the thing did not work - they made an excuse - and asked for more cash. Strange psychology!
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
believers will not be swayed - no matter how much their belief lacks evidence.
At the moment, when nobody of mainstream physicists is willing to replicate even the simplest twenty years old experiments with nickel wire heated in the hydrogen and to present the results in peer-reviewed press, then the situation with cold fusion is clear for me - the lack of replication is not the lack of evidence, but the sign of ignorance. Fortunately I'm not even forced to believe in anything - I've more than one thousands of PDFs about successful replication of cold fusion on my hard disk from other sources already (btw way more experiments, than about Higgs boson, for example). BTW are Zawodny and NASA believers too? Their propagation materials regarding cold fusion are way more adventurous, than the wildest promises of Andrea Rossi.
antialias_physorg
2 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
At the moment, when nobody of mainstream physicists is willing to replicate even the simplest twenty years old experiments

As you've been told many times before: they did. Twenty years ago. Because at the time of the first publications it was an exciting field (and I remember being excited about it myself). Back then I did follow up those who tried to replicate it - but it quickly turned out not to be anything. And I rather doubt that people all over the world tried to intentionally to do it wrong.

If you're not satisfied with that then you can do it yourself. It's ostensibly not that hard.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
As you've been told many times before: they did. Twenty years ago
It's very easy to demonstrate - just give us the link to peer-reviewed publication...;-) The finding of cold fusion of deuterium at nickel is nearly as old (1991), as the finding of cold fusion of normal hydrogen at palladium (1989) - with the only substantial difference: the latter is way more feasible and cheaper. Despite of it (or rather just because of it) it was never researched officially. IMO the main reason is, the deuterium is expensive and palladium is rare - such a cold fusion will not threat the occupation of scientists in other areas. But the nickel and hydrogen - this is real occupation problem, because both elements are cheap and abundant. So it was simply ignored in its entirety.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
Interestingly enough, the first evidence about cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel is way older, than the whole cold fusion hysteria. The Journal of American Chemical Society, 81,5032 (1959) describes the research by R.J.Kokes, and P.H. Anderson. They were studying adsorption of hydrogen on Raney nickel and observed "strange feature of exothermic reaction". Perhaps if they had done an elemental analysis or calorimetry analysis they would have found thermal energy generation in excess of any possible physical chemistry reaction ( that is, a nuclear reaction) - but no one can fault them, in 1959, for not doing an elemental analysis of the nickel after the exothermic reactions. What they observed predated the Piantelli work by 30 years, and the Rossi catalyst by over 50 years.

For me such an evidence is the more precious, because it's completely unbiased - it's not product of organized search for cold fusion evidence. Yet it remained completely ignored with rest of scientific mainstream.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
This is a presentation of Joseph Zawodny from NASA - it essentially describes his stance and his own research in the matter of cold fusion/LENR. It was presented at LENR Workshop held at Glenn's Research Center (GRC) on September 22, 2011. It's quite brief and readable for everyone.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
The detection of some heat excess is one thing, the seeing of cold fusion by naked eye is another one. This is the record of infrared FLIR thermocamera, which is monitoring the cold surface of palladium cathode during electrolysis of LiOD solution. You may fake or simply cripple the calorimetric measurements (and it indeed did happen many times during research of cold fusion) - but how to explain this? Every spark visible under thermocamera is an individual nuclear reaction - a minute explosion of tiny thermonuclear bomb! Isn't it less interesting - if not potentially useful - than for example the finding of rather abstract Higgs boson in expensive LHC collider, which no one could replicate at home? Because this experiment can serve as a quite convincing evidence of anomalous thermal effect worth to research, it was never replicated with mainstream physics as well. If I would be a nuclear physicist, I would want to see it imediately
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
The roots of cold fusion finding are actually even older than 1959 year. Surprisingly even the biggest physicists including Feynman, Hans Bethe or Albert Einstein did know about existence of this effect. In the 1950 Ernest J Sternglass experimented with a cathodic X-ray tube filled with hydrogen and he observed unexplainable transmutation at an energy level where a single electron could not cause any transmutations. Einstein reviewed his work and he recommended to continue in it. And not only this - Einstein was first, who proposed the mechanism of collective lattice vibrations for its explanation. All this research remained covered with both mainstream physics, both popular journals for nearly half of century.
Gerrit 2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2013
antialias_physorg:
As you've been told many times before: they did. Twenty years ago. Because at the time of the first publications it was an exciting field (and I remember being excited about it myself). Back then I did follow up those who tried to replicate it - but it quickly turned out not to be anything. And I rather doubt that people all over the world tried to intentionally to do it wrong.


You are correct, 20 years ago a lot of labs attempted to replicate the Fleischmann-Pons effect, most failed, some succeeded. It quickly turned out that the ones who hadn't been able to reproduce the effect dismissed the reports of successful replications and stopped paying attention. Since then a few hundred scientists have continued research in this field. Many peer reviewed papers have been published in legitimate scientific journals.

A honest skeptic will question is own beliefs first. If you can't do that, you are fooling yourself.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
The mechanism of cold fusion differs from hot fusion in two main aspects. What is coalescing here aren't the ionized hot atom nuclei, but the neutral nickel atoms fully covered with thick coat of electrons. The thicker this coat is, the more dense it is, the better it shields the positive charge of atom nuclei, which prohibits in their merging. The second difference is, inside of atom lattice never interact the isolated pairs of atoms, but a whole areas at the same moment. If you would see the Newton cradle toy first time, you may be surprised, how seemingly minute impulse of few touching balls can expel the free ball from one of ends of the line. And this is actually the secret of cold fusion, because the energy of collision increases with the third power of the size of cluster. It's difficult to strike the sparks with shaking of sand grains inside the vessel - but it's quite easy to do with pebbles.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
Therefore the models, which are used for modeling of hot fusion cannot be applied to cold fusion, because it's multiparticle interaction. Here are another factors in the game too. The tiny atom nuclei release much higher amount of energy during their merging than the small ones. It's because they're behaving like tiny mercury droplets, which are coalescing due their surface tension. The large droplets have small curvature of the surface, so that it's quite easy to merge and split them. The splitting and merging of small droplets is more difficult. Therefore the activation energy required for binding of proton with large nickel atom nuclei is greatly lowered. And not only this - just because the nickel nuclei is so large, it can be subject of surface oscillations, which will make portion of its surface negatively curved for a moment, so that its merging with proton could proceed smoothly.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
Best of all, we (or rather just me) know about chemical analogy of cold fusion with water clusters already. We aren't forced to believe, that these collective lattice effects may mysteriously apply for cold fusion, because we can observe their analogy during splitting of water molecules with radiowaves of low frequency. Interestingly enough, the energy barrier for such a reaction is relatively as high (in order of 10E8), like at the case of cold fusion. This effect is enabled just with fact, what is actually colliding here aren't the single water molecules only, but the whole compact water clusters, containing about 240 molecules each. The inertia of these clusters can break and split the oxygen-hydrogen bonds of individual molecules during collective collisions of many water molecules in the line.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2013
You are correct, 20 years ago a lot of labs attempted to replicate the Fleischmann-Pons effect, most failed, some succeeded.

You are aware that not even Fleischmann and Pons succeeded in replicating their own work?

A honest skeptic will question is own beliefs first. If you can't do that, you are fooling yourself.

As an honest sceptic I will wait till someone shows something reproducible. With the initial failures, howevere, the bar to overcome my sceptiscism has been set a bit higher.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
You are aware that not even Fleischmann and Pons succeeded in replicating their own work?
Peter Hagelstein from MIT uses NANOR, i.e. porous palladium electrode for achieving of COP > 14 routinely, such a demonstration is even part of his MIT public lectures. You can subscribe on it and make sure yourself, if the cold fusion works or not.
I will wait till someone shows something reproducible
You don't have to wait, you can visit MIT ASAP. In Czech we have a proverb: "He who really wants, looks for solutions, he who doesn't want, looks for reasons". It even rhymes with in our language...
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
As Hagelstein/McKubre pointed out, the reproducible heat evolution can be observed just only during certain (and relatively high) saturation of palladium with deuterium. Even the experiments with hot nickel wire in hydrogen need lotta patience. The onset of reaction is followed with evolution of heat and partial desorption of excessive hydrogen from atom lattice, so if you have poor temperature control (i.e. massive electrodes as Fleishmann and Pons did use), then you've to wait again for many hours for next onset of reaction. It's all about careful control of experiments. But the fact, you can even construct the curves like this one indicates, that the LENR can be handled reproducibly, if you're smart and thorough enough.
Gerrit 2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2013
You are aware that not even Fleischmann and Pons succeeded in replicating their own work?


It's a myth.

Fleischmann & Pons worked in France at Technova labs (a Toyota subsidiary) from 1992 to 1995. They replicated the phenomenon many times there, but they didn't succeed to replicate it 100% of the time. Some cells worked, other cells didn't.

Other scientists have replicated the F&P experiment or similar experiments. Peer reviewed papers have been published in respectable mainstream scientific journals.

Are you aware of the Mitsubishi/Toyota transmutation experiments that were reported at CERN and the ANS last year ? Those experiments are reported to be 100% repeatable.

Are you aware of the 5.5 million USD research program at University of Missouri ?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
but they didn't succeed to replicate it 100% of the time. Some cells worked, other cells didn't.
Some theories of dark matter are based just on few particle events detected during timespan of many months. The tauino or top-quark existence is not detected any better than with three - four events - and whole model of three particle generations is based on it. The Higgs boson was announced after detection of roughly one thousand of events. But at the case of cold fusion the physicists suddenly adopt quite different criterions of reliability and evidence. Isn't so difficult to realize, why is it so - the success of dark matter experiments will render them smart, the success of cold fusion experiments will render them stupid and many research projects will be closed in addition. Note that the application of double standards belongs into criterions of pathological skepticism. During years I did become an expert on these stuffs.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
Actually, my mistake - whole the Higgs boson evidence is based on roughly 170 events collected during two and half years in total. I just misinterpreted this graph...
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2013
the pattern of oxygen isotopes on the sun differs greatly from that of Earth


Paging Dr. Oliver Manual.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
the pattern of oxygen isotopes on the sun differs greatly from that of Earth
There are indicia, the cold fusion may occur even at the Earth. After all, whole the organized cold fusion research has started just with finding, that the isotopic ratio of hellium-3/He-4 in natural gas differs from place to place.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2013
In 1927, Swedish scientist J. Tandberg stated that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an electrolytic cell with palladium electrodes. On the basis of his work, he applied for a Swedish patent for "a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy". After deuterium was discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued his experiments with heavy water. The final experiments made by Tandberg with heavy water were similar to the original experiment by Fleischmann and Pons. Fleischmann and Pons were reportedly not aware of Tandberg's work. But after retraction by Paneth & Peters, patent application was eventually denied. as he could not explain the physical process.

Now try to imagine, how the world would probably appear by now, if the physicists wouldn't ignorants and checked thoroughly every indicia. The WWW II would probably never happen and we would colonize the solar system already. Our oil reserves would remain intacted. Every skepticism comes with its own price.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2013
immediately disclaim themselves

Djr and AA need spoon-feeding? Ok...

"Nobel prize winning physicist Brian Josephson posted today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics...

"In view of the repeated and unexplained delays, it would be comforting to those wondering what is happening if your Third Party would issue their own announcement, summarising progress or otherwise..."

Andrea Rossi responded:

"The work of the Indipendent Third Party probably will finish in March. The publication probably will be made by the end of March or close to it and it will be made whatever the results, indipendently from us...The timing of their work does not depend on me: you are among the most important scientists of the World and a Nobel Prize, so you know perfectly how can work a validation of a thing that is as complex as ours. In the meantime we are completing the construction of the first 1 MW plant for civil operation. You are in the list of the scientists that will be invited to visit it."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2013
Like I said - soon. You should be happy - if Rossi fails this review he may be sunk although he seems committed to continue building. At any rate - can you wait until the report is released like jodephson (junction) or do you need to know NOW?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2013
Now try to imagine, how the world would probably appear by now, if the physicists wouldn't ignorants and checked thoroughly every indicia. The WWW II would probably never happen and we would colonize the solar system already. Our oil reserves would remain intacted. Every skepticism comes with its own price.
No, the west would have ended up with no influence in the middle east. The region would have divided ITSELF up according to ethnicity and religion, and an imperialist, islamist caliphate empire would have emerged to threaten the entire world. World war 3 would already have happened and the west could well have lost.

Obviously, western oil-based economies were the only things which prevented this, by funneling money to regimes committed to opposing it.

Oil kept the people there safely divided into little phony nation-states. It kept inevitable conflict localized and Manageable.

This is Victory once again. Obviously more reasonable than an uncontrollable energy source.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2013
The region would have divided ITSELF up according to ethnicity and religion, and an imperialist, islamist caliphate empire would have emerged to threaten the entire world
IMO the Arabian countries would remain solely insignificant, because they would get no money for their oil (Iran, Iraq and Saud Arabia would remain comparable to Afghanistan by their economical power to say at least). The same destiny would face the Soviet Russia, the main income of which after WWW II was based on export of oil. The socialism would ruin itself a way before 1991 and many human lives would be saved in this way.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2013
Iran, Iraq and Saud Arabia would remain comparable to Afghanistan by their economical power to say at least
This didnt stop the ottomans did it? You would have supplied them with an entirely new source of energy. And since when does increasing resources SLOW growth?

Their religion is designed to outgrow and overrun their neighbors, as they all are. You give them free energy and the ability to grow huge armies in only a few generations.

The west also safely consumed this dangerous resource - petroleum - down to levels which can be recovered only with western technologies. A resource which could have been used to fuel petrol-based armies and navies if somehow your energy source could have been kept from them.

We burned it up so that it could not be used against us. This HAD to be done in order to maintain Stability and Progress in a nuclear world. And we did it in ways which extended western dominance over the entire planet.

This Brilliance is not happenstance; it never is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2013
Soviet Russia, the main income...based on export of oil
Indeed. And together the US and the USSR were able to produce the 6000 tons of fissile material that gave us complete dominance of the land and the oceans. Together we were able to determine the disposition of most of the surface of the planet.

Developing countries had only 2 options. We played good cop/bad cop to align nations and shape regimes. Together we determined the outcome of ALL the arab/israeli wars by supplying superior weapons to israel and soviet junk to their enemies.

This also made it easy to control the outcomes of india/pakistani conflicts and to obliterate iraqi, taliban, viet cong, and DPRK armies when the Time came to do so.

The best way to ensure the most favorable outcome in any conflict, is to COMMAND BOTH SIDES. It is obvious that the US and the USSR, by their actions, were on the SAME SIDE.

And when the soviet Operation had served its Purpose, it was Terminated. NOTHING endures but Empire.
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
This didnt stop the ottomans did it? You would have supplied them with an entirely new source of energy. And since when does increasing resources SLOW growth?
They would remain separated from western technologies in similar way, like the people in Chad or Mauretania, who have nothing to offer to the rest of world. Now western countries are boycotting technological embargoes of Islamic countries because of fear from lost access to oil - but what would motivate them if the most of oil would be actually not needed? But this discussion has no deeper meaning here, as it's based on speculations, not testable facts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2013
They would remain separated from western technologies in similar way, like the people in Chad or Mauretania...
When the caliph was in power, baghdad was the center of world techno innovation. Read history.
But this discussion has no deeper meaning here, as it's based on speculations, not testable facts.
Well yah, but so is most of the rest of what you post eh?
but what would motivate them if the most of oil would be actually not needed?
An aggressive islamic empire spanning from north africa to pakistan would be full of resources, power, and angry people - just as it was during the 500 years the ottomans were in charge. It repelled the mongols, destroyed the eastern roman empire, and conquered india.

And it did these things the way it is always done - by force of numbers. The way russia defeated the nazis. That region is FULL of resources to build armies and populations. And they WOULD absolutely be nuclear.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
OK, enough of caliphs. I'm not even sure, if the nuclear research and weapons would be meaningful in the post-cold fusion era. Weapons are useless, when there is essentially nothing to fight for.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2013
OK, enough of caliphs. I'm not even sure, if the nuclear research and weapons would be meaningful in the post-cold fusion era. Weapons are useless, when there is essentially nothing to fight for.
Religion ensures that there is always something to fight for. To cleanse the earth of infidels and heretics, or to fill the bellies of your starving children, or to save your soul and theirs. These things are of equal importance to religionists.

Why else would you blow up a mosque full of people you don't know? Your free energy will only make this worse. That's why war is needed stat. Cultures must be destroyed - time's a-wastin'.
Shootist
3 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2013
the pattern of oxygen isotopes on the sun differs greatly from that of Earth
There are indicia, the cold fusion may occur even at the Earth. After all, whole the organized cold fusion research has started just with finding, that the isotopic ratio of hellium-3/He-4 in natural gas differs from place to place.


You're not Oliver.
Shootist
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2013
Soviet Russia, the main income...based on export of oil
Indeed. And together the US and the USSR were able to produce the 6000 tons of fissile material that gave us complete dominance of the land and the oceans. Together we were able to determine the disposition of most of the surface of the planet.


Russia, main export, natural gas, not petrol (ninnyhammer alert).

Insanity, more precisely, Wolkenkuckucksheim.

Besides, Oliver is the only one who understand this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2013
"There are other interesting options as well, like turning carbon into harmless nitrogen, the main component of our atmosphere. "I don't know what could possibly be cleaner than that," Zawodny said"

-Oddly enough, lack of nitrogen is one of the main obstacles to terraforming mars. And CO2 is the main component of it's atmosphere. I've read ideas about importing N2 from Titan. Zawodny seems to imply that carbon could be converted on a planetary scale.

Wonder how much nickel there is on mars? Plenty in asteroids-
Insanity, more precisely, Wolkenkuckucksheim.
-But sadly true. There was a cold war. Both Sides won.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
Heh, otto's showing off his religion again. You really should cut that out otto, it's a bit embarrassing to be so aggressively anti-religious, then display such religiosity yourself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2013
Heh, otto's showing off his religion again. You really should cut that out otto, it's a bit embarrassing to be so aggressively anti-religious, then display such religiosity yourself.
-Und du? Say something in philospeak. You know, not something you look up, something you make up. The world is shadows on a wall, did you know it?

This takes faith. I prefer evidence. Obviously.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
Obviously. After all, there's TONS of evidence for your trans-historical conspiracy of world leaders to guide human development. /snark

No, I think you eschew both evidence and sound thinking for the worship of personalities and positions. You just happen to have chosen scientists (mostly) as your objects of devotion. That doesn't make you better than the religious. It just makes you a bit odd and sad.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2013
Russia, main export, natural gas, not petrol (ninnyhammer alert).

"Russia is building her might with the sale of her oil.

"For several years the export of oil from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Soviet bloc into free world markets has been a source of growing concern to many American oil men. They have watched closely as the volume of Soviet oil sales has steadily increased in Germany, Italy, Finland, Sweden, France, the Middle East and elsewhere. What troubles them is not the mere fact of Soviet competition, for that is a normal business risk. Their real concern is the system of state-controlled pricing and barter that Russia uses to penetrate free world oil markets." [old article]

(See, the USSR Franchise was disbanded back before y2k. It's Job was done. Next to close shop - the catholic church. Ask Oliver about that thing-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2013
No, I think you eschew both evidence and sound thinking for the worship of personalities and positions.
Well this is easy to say tm. A little harder is presenting convincing counter-argument, which you never have. Only name-calling and funny words like 'eschew'.
You just happen to have chosen scientists (mostly) as your objects of devotion. That doesn't make you better than the religious. It just makes you a bit odd and sad.
Hmmm. I think what is odd and sad is making up philo stuff when the real thing is only a few clicks away. This is not contributing in a meaningful way to the community tm.

'Philospeak is not having to look stuff up' - or having to say youre sorry - more evidence that it is faith. The sheds spread of faith.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2013
-You know, this stuff-
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Full of strange ingredients nobody can pronounce?
-Absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever?
-But tastes almost as good as the real thing?

-Yummy! Stoner college students love it on 7 grain toast-
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2013
I don't really have to present a convincing counterargument. Arguing with you is a lot like arguing with ryggy. Just gotta wind you up a bit, and you produce your own counter. The easiest way to do that is to call a spade a spade. For you, that's to call you out for your pseudo-religious nuttery. For ryggy, that's to call him out on his hippy, idealistic anarchism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2013
I don't really have to present a convincing counterargument. Arguing with you is a lot like arguing with ryggy. Just gotta wind you up a bit, and you produce your own counter. The easiest way to do that is to call a spade a spade. For you, that's to call you out for your pseudo-religious nuttery. For ryggy, that's to call him out on his hippy, idealistic anarchism.
Let's see...
1) declare me wrong
2) deny the need to prove it
3) compare me to another contentious person you are unable to argue against
4) declare ad hom and name-calling valid forms of argument (theyre not you know)
5) declare victory (it's not you know)

-But as we have seen in the past, I am capable of providing convincing evidence (including testimony from experts) to back up my ideas AND to debunk your philobabble. Time and again. Your invective remains empty as usual.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2013
-You know, this stuff-
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Full of strange ingredients nobody can pronounce?
-Absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever?
-But tastes almost as good as the real thing?

-Yummy! Stoner college students love it on 7 grain toast-
To further the analogy...

The above describes traditional philosophy as foisted by professionals. What tm tries to sell is like the imaginary stuff kids spread on their imaginary krumpets at imaginary tea parties.

At least try to reference sometimes eh?
katesisco
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2013
Thankx Maryyugo. The only genuine non fusion/fission conversion of element to element is done by bacteria. The crop circles investigated by Oak Ridge scientist ( Marshall Dudley) where element transmutation was present were deemed to have been transmuted by deuterium accelerated by cloud tops or even the newly discovered acceleration by the magnetosphere interface of planets.
I suspect when Sol is determined to be a hidden magnetar we will make more theories as to the source of these slow neutrons.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2013
Thankx Maryyugo. The only genuine non fusion/fission conversion of element to element is done by bacteria. The crop circles investigated by Oak Ridge scientist ( Marshall Dudley) where element transmutation was present were deemed to have been transmuted by deuterium accelerated by cloud tops or even the newly discovered acceleration by the magnetosphere interface of planets.
I suspect when Sol is determined to be a hidden magnetar we will make more theories as to the source of these slow neutrons.
Looks like omatumr is back.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2013
Looks like omatumr is back.

Nah. That is a level of crazy that goes even beyond omatumr. He at least stuck to making one crazy claim per post.
But that one has four (or five, depending on hwo you count) insane claims in one post.
Gino
not rated yet Feb 25, 2013
Now I will have to pull out the piping I have set up for the cold fusion plant and the foundations for the mini ITER as we all have to use LNER now
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2013
And what, exactly have I tried "selling" anybody in this thread? You're the only one doing any selling here, selling your conception of The Plan with all the vim and vigor of a Southern Evangelical Preacher. So far, in just your responses to me, you've displayed a lack of understanding the burden of proof, a misapplication of the relevance of informal logical fallacies, and a narcissistic personality complex that Napoleon would have been proud of. That's why I don't need to present any counter argument to your nuttery. Just giving you the opportunity and motivation to display it yourself is enough discredit you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2013
displayed a lack of understanding the burden of proof, a misapplication of the relevance of informal logical fallacies, and a narcissistic personality complex that Napoleon would have been proud of
Blah? Im SORRY youll have to be more SPECIFIC.
That's why I don't need to present any counter argument to your nuttery
Because...you just dont like it?
Just giving you the opportunity and motivation to display it yourself is enough discredit you
...in your mind. Discredit me in your mind that is... which is good enough for you I suppose.

Jigga proposed a scenario whereby cold fusion in the first part of the 20th cent would have averted war. I showed him how the opposite would have been the case because of religion.

I forgot - without the wars the euro religionist cultures which had made those wars inevitable, would have prevented the institution of the family planning programs which has prevented war since.

And so the wars would have happened anyway. With nukes.
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2013
declare me wrong
You're off-topic here with it. It's enough for me. BTW I talked about it, not jigga and I talked about WWW II, not about some local religious conflicts between Arabs itself.
Pthieber
1 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2013
It would certainly be nice to have cheap, abundant, clean power in our basements and for space propulsion. But using a wrong theory will not help us get there. Widom and Larsen confuse the meaning of "heavy electron", which refers to a large "effective mass", with electrons that actually have that large mass thus allowing them to participate in otherwise energetically impossible nuclear reactions. And also conveniently allowing them to absorb gamma rays like crazy. There is no such thing as a real heavy electron. What effective mass means is a fictitious value of the electron mass that makes simple expressions, that were initially written for a gas of free electrons, work approximately for electrons interacting strongly with the periodic potentials of the solid state lattice and with some of its bound electrons. And the effective mass isn't even a single scalar value. It depends on the direction of the applied fields; i.e. it is a tensor.
gbgoble
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2013
George Miley has been granted the first U.S. patent for a working LENR energy production device. Research the patent and listed prior art... this branch of science is leaving the cutting edge research phase and has entered the applied engineering phase.

NASA states this (LENR) is not a narrow band set of physical phenomenon. My thought is that many unique devices' patents will mature to published viewing soon.

gbgoble
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2013
George Miley has been granted the first U.S. patent for a working LENR energy production device. Lenuco is the name of his company.

Research the patent (George Miley) and listed prior art... this branch of science is leaving the cutting edge research phase and has entered the applied engineering phase.

NASA states this (LENR) is not a narrow band set of physical phenomenon. My thought is that many unique devices' patents will mature to published viewing soon.