'Cold fusion' moves closer to mainstream acceptance

Mar 21, 2010
A new "calorimeter," shown immersed in this water bath, provides the first inexpensive means of identifying the hallmark of cold fusion reactions: the production of excess heat. Credit: Melvin Miles

A potential new energy source so controversial that people once regarded it as junk science is moving closer to acceptance by the mainstream scientific community. That's the conclusion of the organizer of one of the largest scientific sessions on the topic -- "cold fusion" -- being held in San Francisco for the next two days in the Moscone Center during the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS).

"Years ago, many scientists were afraid to speak about 'cold fusion' to a mainstream audience," said Jan Marwan, Ph.D., the internationally known expert who organized the symposium. Marwan heads the research firm, Dr. Marwan Chemie in Berlin, Germany. Entitled "New Technology," the symposium will include nearly 50 presentations describing the latest discoveries on the topic.

The presentations describe invention of an inexpensive new measuring device that could enable more labs to begin cold fusion research; indications that cold fusion may occur naturally in certain bacteria; progress toward a battery based on cold fusion; and a range of other topics. Marwan noted that many of the presentations suggest that cold fusion is real, with a potential to contribute to energy supplies in the 21st Century.

"Now most of the scientists are no longer afraid and most of the cold fusion researchers are attracted to the ACS meeting," Marwan said. "I've also noticed that the field is gaining new researchers from universities that had previously not pursued cold fusion research. More and more people are becoming interested in it. There's still some resistance to this field. But we just have to keep on as we have done so far, exploring cold fusion step by step, and that will make it a successful source. With time and patience, I'm really optimistic we can do this!"

The term "cold fusion" originated in 1989 when Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons claimed achieving nuclear fusion at room temperature with a simple, inexpensive tabletop device. That claim fomented an international sensation because holds potential for providing the world with a virtually limitless new source of energy. Fuel for fusion comes from ordinary seawater, and estimates indicate that 1 gallon of seawater packs the energy equivalent of 16 gallons of gasoline at 100 percent efficiency for energy production. The claim also ignited scepticism, because conventional wisdom said that achieving fusion required multi-billion-dollar fusion reactors that operate at tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.

When other scientists could not reproduce the Pons-Fleishmann results, research on cold fusion fell into disrepute. Humiliated by the scientific establishment, their reputations ruined, Pons and Fleishmann closed their labs, fled the country, and dropped out of sight. The handful of scientists who continued research avoided the term "cold fusion." Instead, they used the term "low energy nuclear reactions (LENR)." Research papers at the ACS symposium openly refer to "cold fusion" and some describe cold fusion as the "Fleishmann-Pons Effect" in honor of the pioneers, Marwan noted.

"The field is now experiencing a rebirth in research efforts and interest, with evidence suggesting that cold fusion may be a reality." Marwan said. He noted, for instance, that the number of presentations on the topic at ACS National Meetings has quadrupled since 2007.

Explore further: Making radiation-proof materials for electronics, power plants

More information:
Among the reports scheduled for the symposium are:

  • Michael McKubre, Ph.D., of SRI International in Menlo Park, Calif., provides an overview of cold fusion research. McKubre will discuss current knowledge in the field and explain why some doubts exist in the broader scientific community. He will also discuss recent experimental work performed at SRI. McKubre will focus on fusion, heat production and nuclear products. [3pm, Monday March 22, Cyril Magnin ]
  • George Miley, Ph.D., reports on progress toward a new type of battery that works through a new cold fusion process and has a longer life than conventional batteries. The battery consists of a special type of electrolytic cell that operates at low temperature. The process involves purposely creating defects in the metal electrode of the cell. Miley is a professor at the University of Illinois in Urbana and director of its Fusion Studies Lab. [11am, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I]
  • Melvin Miles, Ph.D., describes development of the first inexpensive instrument for reliably identifying the hallmark of cold fusion reactions: Production of excess heat from tabletop fusion devices now in use. Current "calorimeters," devices that measure excess heat, tend to be too complicated and inefficient for reliable use. The new calorimeter could boost the quality of research and open the field to scores of new scientists in university, government, and private labs, Miles suggests. He is with Dixie State College in St. George, Utah. [2.30pm, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I]
  • Vladimir Vysotskii, Ph.D., presents surprising experimental evidence that bacteria can undergo a type of cold fusion process and could be used to dispose of nuclear waste. He will describe studies of nuclear transmutation — the transformation of one element into another — of stable and radioactive isotopes in biological systems. Vysotskii is a scientist with Kiev National Shevchenko University in Kiev, Ukraine. [11.20am, Monday March 22, Cyril Magnin I].
  • Tadahiko Mizuno, Ph.D., discusses an unconventional cold fusion device that uses phenanthrene, a substance found in coal and oil, as a reactant. He reports on excess heat production and gamma radiation production from the device. "Overall heat production exceeded any conceivable chemical reaction by two orders of magnitude," Mizuno noted. He is with Hokkaido University in Japan, and wrote the book Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion. [3pm, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I]
  • Peter Hagelstein, Ph.D., describes new theoretical models to help explain excess heat production in cold fusion, one of the most controversial aspects of the field. He notes that in a nuclear reaction, one would expect that the energy produced would appear as kinetic energy in the products, but in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment there do not appear energetic particles in amounts consistent with the energy observed. His simple models help explain the observed energy changes, including the type and quantity of energy produced. Hagelstein is with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [10.20am, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I].
  • Xing Zhong Li, Ph.D., presents research demonstrating that cold fusion can occur without the production of strong nuclear radiation. He is developing a cold fusion reactor that demonstrates this principle. Li is a scientist with Tsinghua University in Beijing, China. [9.10am, Sunday March 21, Cyril Magnin I].

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

European Union OKs fusion project

Sep 03, 2007

European scientists will build on U.S. military research to try to create laser-based nuclear fusion aimed at replacing fossil fuels, it was reported.

Fusion technology: from ANU to the world

Jun 30, 2005

Technology pioneered at ANU that could see the future of power generation become clean and green has come a step closer today with the announcement of an international development to harness fusion technology. Australian sci ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 207

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
2.7 / 5 (24) Mar 21, 2010
An absolute shame what was done to Pons and Fleischmann.

Similar to how "climate scientists" suggest treating "climate deniers" and just as misdirected.
Corban
3.8 / 5 (14) Mar 21, 2010
Yeah, just like how scientists think New Age peddlers are taking advantage of the peasants' ignorance!

...Waaaiiittt a second...
antialias
3.2 / 5 (17) Mar 21, 2010
Pons and Fleischmann fell into disrepute because they publishes stuff that could not be reproduced - and with the setup they described it should have been simple to get this going in other labs (even they could not reproduce it when asked).

Low power nuclear reactions _may_ be possible - but if you're going to publish then you better make sure you publish something that can be verified or prepare to be stomped on (this goes for _all_ branches of science).

A claorimeter (even one in a water bath) is not exactly a 'new invention', either. Wikipedia could have shown the author that calorimeters have been around since the 1790's!

Dewar flasks with water (invented in 1892) are much better than what is depicted in the article, since the setup in the picture above seems to have no shielding against losses to the enviroinment (which skew the results).

Sorry, but this article just confirms the 'junk science' level at which LENR is currently being conducted. Pick up your game.
marjon
2.8 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2010
"Researchers at a US Navy laboratory have unveiled what they say is "significant" evidence of cold fusion, a potential energy source that has many skeptics in the scientific community.

The scientists on Monday described what they called the first clear visual evidence that low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR), or cold fusion devices can produce neutrons, subatomic particles that scientists say are indicative of nuclear reactions. "
http://www.breitb...rticle=1
phlipper
2.3 / 5 (18) Mar 21, 2010
This is absolutely junk science. This deserves the Al Gore award for stupidity.
"A new "calorimeter," shown immersed in this water bath, provides......"
Oh, really? This container in an ice bath inovation(!) has certainly got me excited -- not. This shameful bid for funding is laughable. It reminds me of all the bogus perpetual motion demonstrations and alien abdution conventions we have seen in the past.
Real self-sustaining nuclear fusion will most likely be achieved this year through high powered lasers. The use of lasers is one of several different methods that are likely to achieve this result. "Cold fusion" is not one of them.
marjon
3.7 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2010
This is absolutely junk science. This deserves the Al Gore award for stupidity.
"A new "calorimeter," shown immersed in this water bath, provides......"
Oh, really? This container in an ice bath inovation(!) has certainly got me excited -- not. This shameful bid for funding is laughable. It reminds me of all the bogus perpetual motion demonstrations and alien abdution conventions we have seen in the past.
Real self-sustaining nuclear fusion will most likely be achieved this year through high powered lasers. The use of lasers is one of several different methods that are likely to achieve this result. "Cold fusion" is not one of them.

How much money was spent researching laser fusion and magnetic fusion? How much more?
dargor17
3.1 / 5 (18) Mar 21, 2010
To Marjon, Shootist and other supporters of this so-called "cold fusion": nuclear physics as we know it is the product of the work of thousands of scientists over more that a century of studies, both theoretical and experimental. Not one claim is supported without being thoroughly tested and examined and measured. There is countless evidence that nuclei can react strongly and fuse only if given sufficient energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier. These LENR guys claim they can make it happen anyway, without being able of giving any theoretical explanation of how it should be possibile. It is not much more believable than claiming to be able to walk on the water, really. So, until serious experiments are shown and reproduced, this is all "junk science"
marjon
3.7 / 5 (19) Mar 21, 2010
To Marjon, Shootist and other supporters of this so-called "cold fusion": nuclear physics as we know it is the product of the work of thousands of scientists over more that a century of studies, both theoretical and experimental. Not one claim is supported without being thoroughly tested and examined and measured. There is countless evidence that nuclei can react strongly and fuse only if given sufficient energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier. These LENR guys claim they can make it happen anyway, without being able of giving any theoretical explanation of how it should be possibile. It is not much more believable than claiming to be able to walk on the water, really. So, until serious experiments are shown and reproduced, this is all "junk science"

How could our ancestors use fire if they did not have a theory for it?
It probably sucks to have your theoretical world upended, but that is science. Embrace the change.
marjon
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 21, 2010
I just saw a presentation of the Invar effect using extreme pressure.
They can observe the effect, but don't completely understand what is happening theoretically.
Isn't that one way to develop a theory, experimentation?
dargor17
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2010
It probably sucks to have your theoretical world upended, but that is science. Embrace the change.

I don't really need your jabs about my "theoretical world" being upended. I am a physicist, an experimentalist to be precise. What I do is to validate theory with measurements and possibly find new phenomena theory can't explain. The point of my previous post was that theory and experiment TOGETHER create science, create the knowledge we currently have of the nucleus. My other point is that these people are not making science, because their experiments are not reproducible and their conclusions contradict a huge amount of knowledge that has been proven by experiment. Your problem is probably that you don't know how physically absurd is to claim that a chemical reaction at room temperature can induce a nuclear fusion, it's really just like claiming that by waving your arms really fast you can fly.
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (14) Mar 21, 2010
@dargor17,

AFAIK, most "cold fusion" experiments rely not on chemical reactions, but on high-gain focusing of thermal/kinetic energy. The idea is to create, in a fluid, a resonance leading to emergence of rapidly-collapsing bubbles. At the center of a bubble, transient temperatures and pressures can become extreme. At a minimum, this is responsible for sonoluminescence, and you ought to know this much is not controversial.

Whether the medium, temperatures and pressures can be tuned to a level allowing fusion (with deuterium or tritium as the fusing species), is unproven. But I haven't seen a fundamental theoretical objection to the possibility. Have I missed it?

I'm much more dubious about claims of cold fusion occurring in bacteria... But I wouldn't dismiss all of the possibilities quite so preemptively or categorically.
Shootist
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2010
To Marjon, Shootist and other supporters of this so-called "cold fusion": . . . These LENR guys claim they can make it happen anyway, without being able of giving any theoretical explanation of how it should be possibile.


I made not one statement in support of the science in the article; just that Pons and Fleischmann were given the bum's rush.

As far as energy from fusion goes: Bussard's polywell, FTW.
Bloodoflamb
3.5 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2010
It's possible to create enough force with your own hands to make a vacuum inside a beer bottle filled almost to the top with water to break out the bottom: http://www.youtub...rSA4FMdM

If you pay close attention to the very beginning, you'll see the water "leap" away from the bottom of the bottle when it get's stopped (this is done by pulling the bottle up really quickly and stopping it against your hand). This is a tiny little space of vacuum, into which the water immediately rushes back into with enough force to break the bottom of the bottle.

I'm not necessarily saying I believe these scientists, but I also won't discount it until I've seen it myself. There's a difference between skepticism and ignorance.
LariAnn
3.4 / 5 (16) Mar 21, 2010
Many of the great discoveries that we take for granted in our 21st century world were not developed by billion-dollar labs with hordes of scientists. Instead, they were discovered by people such as Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla and the Wright brothers. It is a real shame that so many seem to feel that real science cannot be done anymore outside of heavily funded academic efforts or taxpayer-funded mega-labs, either black project level or publicly recognized.

I don't buy into that limitation. Real science has to be reclaimed by the independent researchers. Otherwise, in 100 years we may still be driving cars with the same old internal combustion engines, and relying on centralized fossil fuel power sources.
GaryB
3.1 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2010
I haven't studied this, but it smells like bunk. Show me the reproducible experiments. The wingbats love to "show up" the "experts" -- like their still trying to get over their overbearing father or something. Any real expert would absolutely die to show cold fusion working. Instant Nobel prize and probably instant wealth. No incentive to cover anything up here.
marjon
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2010
It probably sucks to have your theoretical world upended, but that is science. Embrace the change.

I don't really need your jabs about my "theoretical world" being upended. I am a physicist, an experimentalist to be precise. What I do is to validate theory with measurements and possibly find new phenomena theory can't explain. The point of my previous post was that theory and experiment TOGETHER create science, create the knowledge we currently have of the nucleus. My other point is that these people are not making science, because their experiments are not reproducible and their conclusions contradict a huge amount of knowledge that has been proven by experiment. Your problem is probably that you don't know how physically absurd is to claim that a chemical reaction at room temperature can induce a nuclear fusion,

Did you review the paper from a Naval research lab? I provided a link. It is not absurd if your theory is incomplete.
hudres
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2010
Don't waste our time with useless talk. The Gold Standard of fusion is gain. It is trivial to produce neutrons and such. Show us documentation in the form of data printouts from calibrated instrumentation about exactly how much energy goes in and how much comes out. If your gain is less than 10 go and find another project. Remember that the hot fusion community is looking at gain on the order of 100 or so.
Slotin
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2010
An absolute shame what was done to Pons and Fleischmann.
It's not just shame, but tragedy for the rest of civilization - mainstream science wasted twenty years of cold fusion research, while we all facing energetic crisis and global warming. Mainstream physics demonstrated its incompetence again and responsible persons should be punished for it.
Slotin
2.3 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2010
The Gold Standard of fusion is gain.

Not at all, simply because neutronless channel of cold fusion is possible there, too. But standard approach in science doesn't ask for gain - it asks for EXPLANATIONS of things. There is a video.

http://www.youtub...V_qFKf2M

Can you explain, what happens there? If not and you're ignoring this phenomena, then you're not competent scientist anymore. It's as simple as that.
Slotin
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2010
Show me the reproducible experiments
See the video above. Arata's experiments are reproducible, too..
http://dx.doi.org...37.L1274

Slotin
3.3 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2010
if your gain is less than 10 go and find another project.
LOL, you can tell this BS to all hot fusion researchers...;-) One of criterions of pathological scepticim is an application of double standards for mainstream research and for alternative research.
bfast
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2010
The Gold Standard of fusion is gain.

If cold fusion is happening, it is theory breaking. This alone should be plenty of reason to research the death out of it. As it happens, what is being reported from the cold fusion community is gain, and neutrons, and gamma rays and transmutations. Its high time that the scientific community set aside their theory-based disbelief, and confirm or disconfirm the published studies.

Remember that the hot fusion community is looking at gain on the order of 100 or so.

Balderdash, the hot fusion community is desparately seeking energy parity -- and hasn't achieved it with gazillions more dollars spent than the cold fusion micro-community has spent.

NeilFarbstein
2.4 / 5 (13) Mar 21, 2010
solar is cheaper than all fusion systems on the horizon. And it wont pollute the earth with radioactive poisons.
antialias
3.6 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2010
Well, there's places where solar is not an option (space exploration further out than, say, Mars; deep sea exploration/settlement; arctic exploration, ... ).

Working fusion would be great for that as it produces only very little 'radioactive poisons'. The only thing that is radioactive waste is the reactor itself - not the fuel (at least if we go with deuterium/tritium fuels).
AeroEng2
4.3 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2010
Solar also requires 1) LOTS of land for the equivalent power of fusion, 2) special materials in large quantities, 3) the Sun (i.e. it is not power on demand and is only semi-throttle capable-basically just throttling down from max input solar power).

Antialias is right on the radioactive danger of fusion plant operation, but it's worth mentioning that unlike fission reactors, fusion reactors can't meltdown, so you never have to worry about the reactor leaking radioactive material into the environment. As for the fuel, the only fusion fuel we will use in the foreseeable future that is radioactive is tritium, which does no harm externally, and poses very little risk when ingested or inhaled because of its kind of radioactive decay and short half-life. Controlled fusion is the holy grail of mainstream power generation. And just FYI, Neil, modern fission plants pose little risk and waste hazard. Nuclear fusion and fission are our best bets for the future energy.
zevkirsh
2.4 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2010
comments should be raked and this article simply taken off physorg. physorg gets negative points for publishing this crap because it's so far beyond acceptance i won't even begin to read this nonsense, let alone criticize it. i'd rather read a serious article about new theories of interpreting the earths spherical geometry as flat.
ed20
3 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2010
While cold fusion is controversial, it has been reproduced hundreds of times and theories are being actively explored. The problem is not in the measurement of the anomalous effects but finding the special materials in which they occur. Anyone wishing more actual knowledge should go to www.LENR.org and get some facts before making statements that are simply not true.
RealScience
3 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2010
Controlled 'Hot' fusion by humans has not yet reached parity, let alone the factors of 10 or 100 apparantly claimed above.

'Cold fusion' may turn out not to be fusion, but at the very least it produces plenty of hard-to-explain results per dollar and so is worth 1% of the overall fusion pie.

Of course the article title is so far from accurate as to be laughable.

On a side note, solar in space can work beyond Mars - gossamer parabolic mirrors can concentrate sunlight enough for III/V cells all the way out to Pluto while weighing less that plutonium thermal generators.
Exsisto
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2010
Many are trying to disprove the article as fluff. However, it does come from the American Chemistry Society, and what about this link from the LENR-CANR.org page: http://www.lenr-c...logy.pdf

The many institutional research sources it cites are certainly intriguing, and would point away from LENR being the stuff of fairy tales or science fiction.
johanfprins
1.1 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2010
Pons and Fleischmann fell into disrepute because they publishes stuff that could not be reproduced - and with the setup they described it should have been simple to get this going in other labs (even they could not reproduce it when asked).

This might be correct in this case: In my case I discovered superconduction at room temperature 10 years ago. The experiment is simple and has been reproduced in another laboratory. But since it proves that Cooper pairing is not the reason why superconduction occurs, it has been spurned by the superconduction physics sect: Especially those who have won Nobel Prizes for wrong models. My book "The Physics Delusion" will be published this year proving without doubt that modern physics is sick. It became infected by the Alice in Wonderland hallucinations of Heisenberg, Bohr and Born in 1927. This was taken further by Dirac, Feynman etc.
Adam
4 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2010
George Miley shows that, contrary to the impression above, one can be a very good "Hot Fusion" engineer/scientist and a very good "Cold fusion" researcher too. That he doesn't toe the "tokamaks/ICF are the ONLY way fusion is DONE" line might be why his work gets short-shrift by those who think ITER/NIF is the only way ahead.
zevkirsh
3.8 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2010
when you see too many cracks in a pot, you don't point them out you just stop pouring in the soup

Pons and Fleischmann fell into disrepute because they publishes stuff that could not be reproduced - and with the setup they described it should have been simple to get this going in other labs (even they could not reproduce it when asked).

This might be correct in this case: In my case I discovered superconduction at room temperature 10 years ago. The experiment is simple and has been reproduced in another laboratory. But since it proves that Cooper pairing is not the reason why superconduction occurs, it has been spurned by the superconduction physics sect: Especially those who have won Nobel Prizes for wrong models. My book "The Physics Delusion" will be published this year proving without doubt that modern physics is sick. It became infected by the Alice in Wonderland hallucinations of Heisenberg, Bohr and Born in 1927. This was taken further by Dirac, Feynman etc.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2010
..If cold fusion is happening, it is theory breaking...
And so? Theory is no religion, scientific theory the less. For example, John Kanzius splitted water (1.2 eV activation energy) by 12 Mhz radiowaves (5.10E-8 eV). It's eight order difference in energy density in the same way, like at the case of initiating cold fusion (10E8 eV energy) by palladium electrolysis (1.6 eV). Such things simply happens in Nature and experiment always goes first. Anyway, many theories for explanation of these phenomena exist already.

http://www.rustum...rvations of polarized MRI vol 12 is 1.pdf
taka
2 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2010
At lest there is nothing known that makes it impossible, there are plentiful of processes that can concentrate energy. All claims trying to prove that it is impossible are also good to prove that catalyze or igniting a fire is impossible.
seneca
2 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2010
..proving without doubt that modern physics is sick..
I can fully agree with this and people will understand it soon. Modern physicists are spending OUR money for research of phenomena, which are confirming THEIR existing theories, not for research of phenomena, which are violating them. This is exactly the negation of Popper methodology of science, based on falsification of theories. Cold fusion should be studied JUST BECAUSE it violates existing theories. Not saying, we all are losing incredible amount of money by ignoring such research.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2010
Considering the source, this article is an example of what we call, "grasping for grants".

If anyone here is more familiar with Dr. Marwan or Dr. Chemie's work, feel free to tell me where I'm incorrect.
seneca
2 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2010
..example of what we call, "grasping for grants"...
LHC is grasping for grants and public attention in every oficial new about trivialities - but it still doesn't provide any advantage for the rest of civilization, only for scientists involved - with compare to cold fusion research. And personally, cold fusion is much more tricky stuff, then some Higgs boson or supersymmetry for me. We know, these phenomena are working from RHIC/Tevatron experiments already and I understand their mechanism - but the cold fusion is still opened for explanation. In certain sense, it's much advanced science - and potentially usefull, too.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2010
Modern physicists are spending OUR money for research of phenomena,
This is cheap rhetorics. You have no mandate to speak for any majority. You are representing a minuscule minority in physics which is trying to dominate the majority.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2010
If anyone here is more familiar with Dr. Marwan or Dr. Chemie's work, feel free to tell me where I'm incorrect.

I'm more familiar with the German language. :)
The "research firm, Dr. Marwan Chemie in Berlin, Germany" just means that his firm is named "Dr. Marwan Chemistry" with seat in Berlin, Germany.
seneca
2.3 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2010
You are representing a minuscule minority in physics which is trying to dominate the majority
The approach of mainstream physics and their proponents regarding LHC and cold fusion research illustrates well, how every large group of people will get separed by their neeeds from the needs of its social environment. Originally, Holy Church has started its existence to help poor people, but gradually it changed into force hostile to the rest of civilization and advance in understanding. Mainstream physics just follows the same destiny, which becomes the more pronounced, the more money we're sending into it.

It's quite predictable and general phenomena, in fact, analogous to spontaneous formation of black holes and stars from spares density fluctuations of matter (money attract money, which attract people, etc..).

I'm representing people, who are expecting usefull results from science and increasing of general level of understanding - not just complexity of abstract theories.
seneca
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2010
Currently the redundant and dangerous research of LHC is preffered, while the usefull and safe research of cold fusion or room temperature superconductivity (I mean real findings, not some hypothesis) are ignored.

Apparently something is rotten in the state of Denmark - and who cannot see it, is simply inhabitant of it, too.
frajo
3.8 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2010
I'm representing people, who are expecting usefull results from science and increasing of general level of understanding
No. You don't represent me.
You try instead to be an usurper of the word "useful". (BTW why don't you use 1% of your time & energy to look into a useful English dictionary?)
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2010
I'm more familiar with the German language. :)
The "research firm, Dr. Marwan Chemie in Berlin, Germany" just means that his firm is named "Dr. Marwan Chemistry" with seat in Berlin, Germany.


Sorry, my fault. He titles all his work as being "from Dr. Marwan Chemie, from Dr. Jan Marwin." He's nauseating
seneca
1.8 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2010
You try instead to be an usurper of the word "useful".
I explained already, we have no usage for any particle revealed in collider experiments during last seventy years - and this is just a bare fact. So I can extrapolate safely, no usage of LHC research could be expected during another fifty years. Whereas cold fusion would have immediate usage apparently for most of people on the planet, not saying about ecology and fossil fuel supplies.
seneca
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2010
..No. You don't represent me...
Like I've said, I'm representing people, who are expecting usefull results from science and the increase of general level of understanding - for everybody, not just close group of theorists, who are behaving like shamans of ancient era.

I didn't said, it's just You, who belongs into such group of people. My motivation is to make physics as transparent as possible and as productive, as possible. I'm not payed for development of random abstract theories with 10E+500 solutions and for organizing of dangerous, but basically uselless collider experiments.

I admit, at some distant future we should have interest about everything - but currently our poor civilization has apparently a more down-to-earth priorities.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2010
when you see too many cracks in a pot, you don't point them out you just stop pouring in the soup

If you are such an expert in seeing cracks in a pot, why are you so retarded not see the cracks in the Copenhagen pot? e.g. How can the intensity distribution of a Schroedinger wave be a probability distribution when the most probable position to find an electron is at zero intensity for most of these waves? Where do you live? In a loony bin?
marjon
2.6 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2010
From Max Planck:
"“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”"

Seems appropriate. It is disappointing that scientists are irrational human beings, too.
seneca
2.8 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2010
.A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die..
This is exactly the case of cold fusion, becase we are whole human generation after the initial finding just now. Symptomatic point there is, cold fusion proponents are rather older scientists, not these young one:

http://www.wired...._pr.html

"In a huge, grandiose convention center I found about 200 extremely conventional-looking scientists, almost all of them male and over 50. In fact some seemed over 70, and I realized why: The younger ones had bailed years ago, fearing career damage from the cold fusion stigma.

"I have tenure, so I don't have to worry about my reputation," commented physicist George Miley, 65. "But if I were an assistant professor, I would think twice about getting involved."
seneca
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2010
The "natural human inquisitiveness" is not crucial for young scientists - they're looking for stable personal carriers, wandering around conferences and safe life inside of ivory towers of their formal misunderstanding of reality. As the result, modern science doesn't study phenomena, because they're unexpected, potentially useless the less - but just because they're expected by existing theories and predictable well. This is the true reason, why we are spending billions in LHC research, while ignoring cold fusion.

Samuel Johnson: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Paul Getty: "Failure is not fatal; victory is not success"

Tony Richardson: "Don't fear failure so much that you refuse to try new things"

http://www.worldo...dex.html
antialias
3.8 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2010
The "natural human inquisitiveness" is not crucial for young scientists


I beg to differ (me being one of these 'young' (well sub 40) scientists). We scientists usually have skills/degrees that could get us well paying jobs in the industry. However, these jobs are - compared to research positions - boring. This even goes for most development groups in large companies as you are always very restricted in what you may do research on (it always must be able to make some money in the short run)*

* There are few exceptions to this but these companies are few and far between.

almost all of them male and over 50. In fact some seemed over 70, and I realized why

The rule is: No paper no conference (travel budgets are limited).
Lead scientists get the papers out since the younger ones haven't yet done enough to publish.
And since it is the older ones who can make/negotiate connections/cooperations to other lead scientists/groups it is they who mostly go to conferences.
Bloodoflamb
4.3 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2010
I explained already, we have no usage for any particle revealed in collider experiments during last seventy years - and this is just a bare fact.

Rofl. What? You think that a better understanding of the nature of the subatomic universe hasn't translated into gains for humanity? Are you a troll or a moron? Or both?

Particle accelerators serve as testing grounds for quantum mechanics. What do we have right? What do we have wrong? What physics can we see that has no explanation in our theories? These are all important questions to answer as we attempt to construct the most comprehensive and cohesive theory of matter that we can. Quantum mechanics has allowed us to go far beyond what we could have before in terms of almost every field of engineering that is known.
Slotin
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2010
you think that a better understanding of the nature of the subatomic universe hasn't translated into gains for humanity?
Umm, no. Our nuclear weapons didn't made us more happy, more human the less - after all, they were developed without colliders. Other applications of subnuclear world are of infinitesimal importance yet. In fact, whole QM was derived without usage of colliders at all. We can test quantum mechanics in many other ways, but we still doesn't understand it. The understanding of QM is somewhere else, in understanding of the behavior of dense particle systems. The true is, if all colliders would dissapear from this world in the next moment, nearly nobody would notify it at all.
Slotin
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2010
In certain sense, the deep belief in QM slowed down the acceptation of new findings in another areas, cold fusion or room Tc superconductivity in particular - which could become more important for civilization, then maybe all the remaining applications of QM together. The advance in theories is not so straightforward, as it may appear at the first look.
airlinemusic
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2010
Pons and Fleischmann were to duplicate a process by Bill Lyne if the old news paper reports were correct.
The non mainstream experimenter Lyne (pronounced line) is suspected to be well known in Illuminati circles and perhaps known to Spielberg before doing ET. I'd call it all secret science cause we never hear of it working.
abdlomax
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2010
What most commenters here are showing is that they haven't read the literature. The F-P effect has been massively reproduced (more than 153 peer-reviewed publications). It was far more difficult than at first believed, and F&P reported neutrons, which was an error. Whatever the reaction is, it's not ordinary deuterium fusion, so theoretical objections based on it not showing signs of d+d fusion (neutrons, tritium, or gamma rays) were off base. The effect was excess heat in highly loaded palladium deuteride. Later, it was conclusively shown that the heat is associated quantitatively with helium production. Note: correlation! -- at roughly the right figure for deuterium fusion. No heat, no helium. But it's not deuterium fusion, almost certainly. Want to know what it is? Read the effing literature! Nobody knows for sure, though.
seneca
3 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2010
But it's not deuterium fusion, almost certainly..
If it's neutronless fusion, the better. The production of radioactivity inducing neutrons is the most annoying aspect of hot fusion, after all.

for example D + 6Li → 2 4He + 22.4 MeV

For potential investors just the heat gain is interesting, not the actual mechanism, in fact. We aren't required to understand nuclear reactions inside of sun to be able to use solar energy. It means, this research can continue at pure empirical basis. We aren't required to understand superconductivity mechanism for to be able prepare HT superconductors. In fact, even if we would know it, we may not be able to prepare better superconductors, because this is completely different task.
Slotin
2.4 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2010
The F-P effect has been massively reproduced
In fact, cold fusion effects were reproduced better, then the production of most particles in colliders - the only difference is, we still have no reliable theory for it. All skeptics here are illustrating the power of the mainstream propaganda and intersubjective belief.
Caliban
2.4 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2010
And, again, I say- the main reason why this area of inquiry has languished for want of grants, been tarnished by the brush of pseudoscience, and dismissed by the mainstreams both scientific and media, is simply because it poses the most significant threat to the status quo of the last 500 years and has the potential to radically transform human society worldwide forever.
How does the actuality of clean, renewable, VERY cheap, limitless power generation affect the entrenched and multiply cross-connected fossil fuels industry? Whole regimes, and possibly countries would fail and fall. The entire geopolitical structure would change, and no one country would be reliant on any outside agency(corporate,governmental,bank) to look after its own affairs socially, politically, and economically.
Fossil fuels are the glue that enforce the current world power structure(in every sense). Access to LENR derived energy would be a complete and total paradigm change. It won't be much longer!
PPihkala
1.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2010
This certainly evokes emotions. And I too want to say that one big problem of cold fusion or LENR is lack of theories that can be tested and proven correct or false. We have this experiment that relies on circumstances that are hard to replicate because we don't know what parts of it are important or not. But with more and more experiments done, people are getting better at getting consistent results. Other problem, as I see it is that it's small. It's hard to control who is ultimately using it. It's easy to control ITER, it's too costly. Same goes to fission plants. The same goes to other energy too, maybe disregarding emerging renewables like solar and wind. And that can spell troubles for control clics like Caliban stated.
frajo
2.7 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2010
The same goes to other energy too, maybe disregarding emerging renewables like solar and wind. And that can spell troubles for control clics like Caliban stated.
The "control clics" will never be able to control all the planet. Thanks to the non-capitalist countries.
rdza
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2010
If the triple product shoe fits...
It's entirely possible (especially with some superconductor love), but hard numbers please. And reproducible experiments.
hush1
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2010
There IS hope... if Caliban&Co never tires to repeat the obvious...nor obstructed in doing so. :)
johanfprins
2 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2010
In fact, cold fusion effects were reproduced better, then the production of most particles in colliders - the only difference is, we still have no reliable theory for it. All skeptics here are illustrating the power of the mainstream propaganda and intersubjective belief.


Well said! Neither do we have a reliable theory for "particle physics" All quantum field theory is based on Bohr's principle of complementarity: which is just plain unadulterated claptrap. There are only waves: Light waves do not have inertia and matter waves do. Thus the energy of matter waves is mass-energy. Each wave thus has a centre-of-mass which obviously moves as if the mass is concentrated at this centre. The "dumkopfs" at CERN then deduce "particles". Eish!!!
broglia
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2010
..light waves do not have inertia and matter waves do...
Light doesn't spread in form of pure harmonic waves. Every energy wave in quantum foam spreads like less or more dense blob, because such foam gets more dense during shaking in similar way like soap foam. In this way matter evaporates into photons and light waves are dispersing their mass into outside. Without it the mass-energy equivalence would be violated.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2010
The "control clics" will never be able to control all the planet. Thanks to the non-capitalist countries.

It's far easier to bribe a single dictator than it is to pocket an entire congress.
frajo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2010
The "control clics" will never be able to control all the planet. Thanks to the non-capitalist countries.

It's far easier to bribe a single dictator than it is to pocket an entire congress.
Yes. Therefore, the single-dictator countries which are bribed don't belong to the set of non-capitalist countries. They are mere assets of the capitalist world.
Bloodoflamb
4 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2010
Light waves do not have inertia and matter waves do.

Light DOES have inertia. You clearly don't understand physics very well!
Simonsez
3 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2010
@ Caliban
the main reason why this area of inquiry has languished ... is simply because it poses the most significant threat to the status quo of the last 500 years and has the potential to radically transform human society worldwide forever.

Your argument brings a nostalgiac tear to my eye, for it is the very same tale of N. Tesla who discovered practical free energy via his Wardenclyffe project.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2010
Yes. Therefore, the single-dictator countries which are bribed don't belong to the set of non-capitalist countries. They are mere assets of the capitalist world.

So by your definition there are no non-capitalist countries on the planet. Guess those control cliques will remain in complete control.
antialias
4 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2010
I think therae are a number of very baseless conspiracy theorists in here:

1) If LENR was so easy to achieve then several countries of the third world would already have used it (what do they care what big-oil says?)

2) If someone wants to clamp down on your reasearch go to a third world country and develop it there. None of these 'persecuted' researchers have done so. You have to ask yourself: why?

3) Repression of something supposedly so easily replicated is neigh impossible. If the results could only be obtained in one or two locations in the world? Maybe. But with something that people are supposedly doing in their back yard? No chance.

4) Show me one of these 'researchers' who have gone off the grid with their private LENR reactor.
frajo
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2010
Yes. Therefore, the single-dictator countries which are bribed don't belong to the set of non-capitalist countries. They are mere assets of the capitalist world.

So by your definition there are no non-capitalist countries on the planet. Guess those control cliques will remain in complete control.

My set of non-capitalist countries is not empty. Your assumption that we have the same definition of "single-dictator-countries" must be wrong.
eachus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2010
A claorimeter (even one in a water bath) is not exactly a 'new invention', either. Wikipedia could have shown the author that calorimeters have been around since the 1790's!


Guess you can't read. This is an improved (cheaper, more accurate) calorimeter.

Dewar flasks with water (invented in 1892) are much better than what is depicted in the article, since the setup in the picture above seems to have no shielding against losses to the enviroinment (which skew the results).


Sigh! Calorimeters are used to study heat production. If you produce heat in a system isolated from the environment, it will soon melt the container. The (total) heat produced in cold fusion experiments is measured in megajoules. A megajoule is about the amount of heat a microwave oven produces in two minutes.

I don't know why hot fusion scientists are so down on cold fusion. CF research has resulted in discovery of fractofusion and sonofusion, which are generally accepted.
abdlomax
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2010
It was said: "If LENR was so easy to achieve then several countries of the third world would already have used it (what do they care what big-oil says?" Some LENR are easy to achieve, but only on a small scale. There are two issues, and they get easily confused: do LENR take place, and can they be harnessed for power production? The answers at this part, from the consensus in the current literature, which is massive, is Yes, and Nobody Knows. Figure out how, you might get filthy rich, but do be aware that hundreds of millions of dollars have been tossed at this problem without success. Much less money than hot fusion, and much better results, but still no cigar. You could probably build a cold fusion hot water heater using the Arata effect for only, maybe, $100,000 each, plus development costs. The energy would be cheap, but not the hot water heater! Nanoparticle palladium is very expensive. You'd get the palladium back, but .... it would need reprocessing.
abdlomax
5 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2010
It was said, "If someone wants to clamp down on your reasearch [sic] go to a third world country and develop it there. None of these 'persecuted' researchers have done so. You have to ask yourself: why?"

You have to ask yourself why people post comments that are so devoid of knowledge of the topic. Cold fusion research continued, in developed nations, all over the world. I'm familiar with work in the U.S., France, Italy, China, India, Japan. Most publication moved outside the U.S. "Persecution" is a fact, though, and it's well documented. Tenured professors denied access to research facilities, grad students who assisted them denied credit for the work, funding opposed at every turn, including funding recommended by review panels, publication denied without review or by reviewers who rejected based on no fault of the paper, and on and on. See Bart Simon, Undead Science, a sociologist's review, quite carefully neutral.

But research continued, anyway. That's why we know better now.
abdlomax
5 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2010
It was said, "Repression of something supposedly so easily replicated is neigh impossible. If the results could only be obtained in one or two locations in the world? Maybe. But with something that people are supposedly doing in their back yard? No chance. "

That's correct. And that's why you are reading about all this now. Your point? It was not "repressed," only delayed and harassed, and the normal scientific review process was bypassed, very effectively, for a time. Short term, though, the effect is similar.

Back yard? Well, most researchers think it's quite a bit more difficult than that, but some useful work has been done in home labs.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2010

My set of non-capitalist countries is not empty. Your assumption that we have the same definition of "single-dictator-countries" must be wrong.

Name one country that is both populated and completely free of capitalistic influence.
antialias
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2010
The normal scientific process is very hard to 'harass' or 'delay'.

In public institutions (e.g. universities) you are basically free to engage in any kind of scientific investigations you like as long as you can get some funding. If you already have a demonstrator set up then that sort of funding is not hard to come by. If you have a product that you can quite possibly market (like limitless free energy) then funding is virtually guaranteed. Just go to Google or IBM or Sony or wherever they do non-topic-specific research

Especially if the area of research is relatively cheap and requires almost no special materials (or special containment structures) there is practically no way to stop it from happening somewhere - even if the outcome of the research is questionable.

All this ranting about 'delay' and 'harassment' sounds bogus.

Publish good, _reproducible_ results and the research community _will_ take notice. That has been my experience in various aspects of research.
abdlomax
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2010
It was said: "The normal scientific process is very hard to 'harass' or 'delay'."

That's correct. This was not normal process, by any means.

Commenting on science without knowledge of the sources is shallow and generally ignorant.

Commenting on politics and social process, without knowledge of the sociological literature or the actual history, is no more cogent. There is a whole book about this, I cited as Undead Science, published by Rutgers University Press, 2002, by a sociologist of science, Bart Simon. Before you make general statements about the history, based on your ideal of "normal scientific process," perhaps you should inform yourself? Could what you think is "ranting" be simply a sober description of the history? How would you know?

Good, reproducible results have been published, and not just once, but *many* times. And, indeed, the "research community" has taken notice. Peer reviewers are accepting papers at major publications now. I'm not complaining. You are.
antialias
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2010
Science on things which have no special prerequisistes is international (it's slightly different for things which are intrinsically international).

It is not believable that science can be harassed/delayed all over the world at the same time. No matter how 'omnipotent' you think these conspirators are. The world is larger than Utah.
(but from my experience it doesn't even happen there, as you will always find people happy to finance research that is already past the theoretical stage and offers a _huge_ payoff)

I have nothing against cold fusion research projects. If they can produce good results: Good for them. Publish, form a company, exploit, market, change the world.

But don't whine about 'not getting accepted' for shoddy, not reproducible work. If you have no theory then do more work until you do.
googleplex
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2010
The Scientific Method is the only official way of conducting research.
If you deviate from it then you better have a darn good reason as it has produced the most profound discoveries of mankind.
Someone needs to scrutinize the systemic failings rather than persecuting Fleishman et al.
Slotin
3.5 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2010
The normal scientific process is very hard to 'harass' or 'delay'.
What is "normal" in science? For example, dark matter was observed in 1933, but because most of astronomers didn't like Fritz Zwicky, this finding was ignored for fifty years. In fact, normal approach in science is to ignore experimental evidence, which violates established theories as long, as possible.
abdlomax
not rated yet Mar 23, 2010
Per antialias's comments: Yes. Science is international, or else cold fusion might have been more thoroughly crushed in 1989. That it was crushed (relatively) is an historical fact, established by academic sources that consider such things. It's not a whine or a complaint, just a fact. Antialias may not believe it, but this says more about antialias than any actual state of the literature. "Form a company" has nothing to do with science itself, and many companies have been formed, and some are still operating. Some failed. It remains very difficult to scale this up. It's now known how to get robust, repeatable effects, and that's been published, contrary to implications based on no knowledge at all of the situation, but this is still short of any commercial "success." As to theory, how about we reject anything we don't understand? Would this be good science? It seems that some think so.

The ACS Conference is not about "cheap energy." It's about science and research. That's progress.
Slotin
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2010
The ACS Conference is not about "cheap energy." It's about science and research. That's progress.
Nope, the science should be done, because it's useful for all people on the planet, not because it's useful for scientists and their research only. It's evident (and your sentence only demonstrates it), contemporary "scientists" are willing to research phenomena only if it doesn't threatens their credibility in any way. Their ideology requires separation of science from needs of society, thus avoiding negative feedback from the rest of society. Such approach makes salary machine from science.

Sorry, but the science should be always usefull - or its uselless or even harmless for the rest of society.
Slotin
2 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2010
Anyway, mainstream science violates the principle of natural human inquisitiveness apparently. We have mysterious and well proven heat evolution, we have mysterious sparks detected by thermocamera, tritium tracks and many other indicia of nuclear reaction. I'd expect, every scientist would interest about this research by his very nature - but exactly the opposite is true. Contemporary scientists aren't interested about unknown phenomena, if it cannot help their credibility or safe job for many years.

http://www.youtub...V_qFKf2M

Are people so degenerated already, they have no interest about phenomena, which is really unknown by its very nature?
antialias
4 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2010
It appears you have never worked in science. We aren't supermen that wave magic wands and knowledge suddenly appears.

If you are intersted in these kinds of phenomena then study the relevant subjects and start researching them using the scientific method - that's all it takes to be a scientist (and you should also try to publish your stuff - which isn't too hard if your method is rigorous).

But don't whine about how the 'scientific community' is ignoring certain phenomena. Maybe people are interested in other things. Maybe they don't know _how_ to start researching this stuff properly. The number of interesting subjects far exceeds the number of scientists.

If you do want to investigat then go ahead: you will find nothing but open doors. Become a member of the research community and stop moaning how 'unfairly stuff is being ignored'.

And if you are not qualified to do that research (because you lack the expertise or are too stupid to get a relevant degree/grant): then shut up.
panda
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2010
I found this (cite-supported) passage from Wikipedia very compelling:

"Between 1992 and 1997, Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry sponsored a 'New Hydrogen Energy Program' of US$20 million to research cold fusion. Announcing the end of the program in 1997, Hideo Ikegami stated 'We couldn't achieve what was first claimed in terms of cold fusion.' He added, 'We can't find any reason to propose more money for the coming year or for the future.'"

Can proponents of CF speak to why, even with such an investment, little in the way of results was obtained?

( http://en.wikiped...d_fusion )

abdlomax
5 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2010
It was asked, "Can proponents of CF speak to why, even with such an investment, little in the way of results was obtained?"

It's obvious. It is really, really difficult. Much more money than that has been spent. The announcement from Japan is unclear in meaning, but probably it was the same situation as with the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy Review. Half that 18-member expert panel considered evidence for excess heat "conclusive," and two-thirds of those thought the evidence for nuclear origin "somewhat convincing," but *nobody* recommended a focused research program. Rather, the recommendation was unanimous (big change from 1989) for focused funding under existing programs to clarify the basic science. The U.S. DoE did not follow the recommendation, and grant applications were denied, but research continued anyway, with some funding though national laboratories.

That Japanese effort sought quick results. When they realized that wasn't likely to happen, they bailed.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2010
We mathematicians requested that you not apply our useless and harmless work to anything.

You did anyway :) ;)

Blame us. It gives us a sense of Existenzberechtigung - right to exist. We left you hanging ...with no interpretations to anything... phenomenal or physical.

And thanks...for naming what we do science.
abdlomax
not rated yet Mar 23, 2010
the ACS press conference

http://www.ustrea.../5620243
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2010
The "control clics" will never be able to control all the planet. Thanks to the non-capitalist countries
If control clics are inevitable then it would behoove anyone with sufficient power who might be concerned with the effect these clics might have on the Course of Civilization, to establish them Themselves; preferably on both sides of an issue. 'The only way to ensure the Proper Outcome in any conflict, is to command both sides.'
panda
4 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2010
While I sympathize with the observation that $20 million for 5 years is not much for some pursuits in science, don't you think the results so far are somewhat lacking in justification for further funding of that kind? What exactly are the conclusive results?

"Half that 18-member expert panel considered evidence for excess heat [conclusive]...."

You may celebrate this, but I wouldn't want to be the one trying to convince a state legislature to give me another $20 million on this basis, not when there's only so much money to go around. Hopefully, CF researchers will get something to continue their work, not because they promise any results, but because science requires studying unexplained phenomena wherever it arises. That justification, however, wins a smaller budget.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2010
'The only way to ensure the Proper Outcome in any conflict, is to command both sides.'
Which is why you have guys like Robt Bussard working for the AEC when the tokamak was approved, who then go on to sit on promising concepts like the Riggatron and polywell so they don't emerge as serious competition (until the Proper Time). Supposedly.
abdlomax
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2010
It was said, "... don't you think the results so far are somewhat lacking in justification for further funding of that kind?"

That's right, in my opinion. As McKubre said in the press conference, we are still in the science phase. But we may be close to the corner.

"What exactly are the conclusive results?"

Excess heat correlated with helium at 25+/-5 MeV/He-4 (Storms review, 2007, based on 10 studies). Neutrons. (Secondary, probably, but indicating primary nuclear reaction) (SPAWAR, 2007, but many other reports. The very low levels were considered a problem; but the use of SSNTDs close to the cathode has ruled out other sources.) Too much to say here. Read the literature. Or don't. Listen to Mills in the press conference.

The 2004 DoE review was cursory (one day meeting) and you can tell from reviewer comments that many didn't give it adequate attention. Maybe it's time for a new review with a deeper analysis.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2010
Light waves do not have inertia and matter waves do.

Light DOES have inertia. You clearly don't understand physics very well!


In which inertial reference frame is light stationary? You do not even understand special relativity!!!! How stupid can a person be?

Light can only have inertia when it interacts with matter.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2010
Light doesn't spread in form of pure harmonic waves. Every energy wave in quantum foam spreads like less or more dense blob, because such foam gets more dense during shaking in similar way like soap foam. In this way matter evaporates into photons and light waves are dispersing their mass into outside. Without it the mass-energy equivalence would be violated.

This is the biggestr claptrap that I have ever read. Prove experimentally that your virtual "foam" exists. Maybe you should blow a few bubbles that we can see!
Radio-waves are also light waves with long wavelengths. They spread in the form of pure harmonic waves: So why would light with shorter wavelengths not do the same? Because the Copenhagen idiots interpreted quantum mechanics incorrectly?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2010

In which inertial reference frame is light stationary? You do not even understand special relativity!!!! How stupid can a person be?

Light can only have inertia when it interacts with matter.
That's incorrect. Light and all other EM waves have inertia. We can only measure it during matter interaction.

Then again, you can only measure inertia during matter interaction in ALL cases. This is because the inertia is so low otherwise that it's below our ability to detect via observation.

If SR was as you say, Gravitational Lensing and the Eclipse Experiment in Brasil would have come to completely different conclusions.

When a body emits light it must lose mass according to Einsteins formula: L/c^2, therefore light does have inertia because it has momentum regardless of a zero rest mass.
otto1923
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2010
anyone with sufficient power who might be concerned with the effect these clics might have on the Course of Civilization, to establish them Themselves
Which is why tokamaks have received the bulk of fusion research funding despite being a less than ideal configuration for producing power. In the future plasmas will be produced, stored, and applied in bulk for many different applications. Toroidal confinement is the only alternative for storing large amounts of plasma in a portable configuration (antimatter) but requires the most expensive R&D to develop. As this will be an integral and essential part of future plasma use, a plausible reason for expending money was devised to fund tokamaks and potential competition was suppressed, which might produce more tangible results with less money.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2010
The main reason why tokamaks are so expensive is the manufacture process, not the R&D.

There are 3 foundries in Japan, 2 in China, and 1 in Canada that have the skilled workers in house to weld and manufacture the basins needed and of installation laborors there are even fewer.

There's been a great loss of skill in the world economy. China and India are starting to ramp up economically because they lower manufacturing standards and in other cases they have the workers with sufficient training to do the work.
otto1923
5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2010
At PPPL we had 1800+ employees at 3 sites in support of 3 major tokamak experiments. Design, construction, testing, reconfiguration would take years. This was complicated by a confined site and complex DOE funding reqts which limited the size and configuration of support facilities. Tokamaks and laser fusion facilities need a great deal of Infrastructure, administrative and bureaucratic support that other programs might not require. They are great cash cows and easy to slow down as needed.
JedRothwell
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2010
phlipper wrote:

"A new "calorimeter," shown immersed in this water bath, provides......"
Oh, really? This container in an ice bath inovation(!)

No, it is not. Those are not ice cubes at the top. I believe they are Styrofoam. That is often used in a constant temperature water tank.

phlipper should learn something about this subject before trying to critique it. He will find ~1,200 peer-reviewed journal papers on cold fusion in any university library, and about ~1,000 full text papers here, including many by Miles:

http://lenr-canr.org

For a recent review of the subject, see U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, "Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance" DIA-08-0911-003, 13 November 2009

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2010
My training tells me to ignore LENR, but the evidence and paperwork is starting to make me question that training.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2010
That's incorrect. Light and all other EM waves have inertia. We can only measure it during matter interaction.

This is so because when light interacts with matter its speed becomes less than c. One can then find an inertial refrence frame within which a unidirectional moving light wave is stationary. When light moves through vacuum there is not such an inertial reference frame; and therefore no inertia. Maybe you should visit Galileo's books since it is clear that you do not have a clue what inertia means!
Then again, you can only measure inertia during matter interaction in ALL cases. This is because the inertia is so low otherwise that it's below our ability to detect via observation.

It is below our ability because it is ZERO when not interacting with matter.
If SR was as you say, Gravitational Lensing and the Eclipse Experiment in Brasil would have come to completely different conclusions.

Not true at all.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2010
When a body emits light it must lose mass according to Einsteins formula: L/c^2, therefore light does have inertia because it has momentum regardless of a zero rest mass.

Obviously when a body with mass emits light it must lose mass because a material body consists of matter waves having inertia and thus mass energy. After the light wave has been emitted, it moves with speed c and thus has no inertia. Therefore it does not have a rest mass.
When a light wave resonates with an electron-wave around the nucleus it slows down to zero speed relative to the nucleus so that it can entangle with the stationary electron wave to add mass-energy. Therefore the electronwave then has to morph into another electron wave with a higher mass-energy. No quantum jump! Only instantaneous morphing which also explains EPR.
One can similarly model the photo electric effect in terms of light and electron waves morphing and entangling. Thus there are no "particles": Only waves!
How's that my bra
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2010
After the light wave has been emitted, it moves with speed c and thus has no inertia.
Again, this is wrong. You're ignoring most of the fundamentals of Einstein's theories without any valid justification.

And you cannot have only waves with no particles. As soon as you observe the waveform collapses and the wave ceases to be. Violating the Point Particle tenets of particle physics to exemplify your point might fly with most people, but not with me.

Matter loses mass on emission due to E-MC^2, this is all basic, basic stuff. Just because light doesn't conform to F-ma doesn't mean there is no inertia. You need to read something a bit more modern than Galileo, especially as Galileo could only deal in relativity due to the technology limitation of the time.
Yevgen
4 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2010
We should keep in mind one thing - during last 15 years
a lot of unclear and non-reproducible aspects of this field have been cleared by serious researchers. It is quite clear by now that
1) D-fusion in solids is a very low rate process, and
does not result in any noticeable heat generation
2) Heat observed was due to exothermic desorption of D that has been adsorbed during electrolysis.
If you are interested in details of precise measurements that clarify these points,
look for example at excellent paper from a leading
institute of russian academy of science, well known
for its conservative no-bulshit approach:
http://64.142.106...sion.pdf

What is important, that even at extremely low rates, exothermic desorption driven fusion in solids is a very interesting phenomenon which understanding can open new physics, in turn leading to other useful applications if not to practical fusion devices.
abdlomax
not rated yet Mar 24, 2010
It was written: "1) D-fusion in solids is a very low rate process, and
does not result in any noticeable heat generation
2) Heat observed was due to exothermic desorption of D that has been adsorbed during electrolysis."

Lipson's work is excellent, but could be misunderstood. The second statement above somewhat contradicts the first. Lipson's conclusion is that fusion is taking place, and he concludes that the reaction happens during desorption. This is now more generally described as the palladium deuteride being taken out of equilibrium, which will cause movement of the deuterium through the lattice. Just having loaded deuterium into palladium is not enough, and that's what (1) is about. Note, by the way, that the absorption of D into Pd is exothermic, so desorption itself is endothermic.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 24, 2010
Note, by the way, that the absorption of D into Pd is exothermic, so desorption itself is endothermic
Only when going from Palladium Deuteride to Palladium Hydride. When working with a cooling Pd tube as the Chinese have done you exploit the Exothermic properties of deuteride solution as well by slowly cooling the Pd tube over time this addressing the endothermic losses caused during desorption and dissolution.

http://iopscience...igration
Yevgen
5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2010
equilibrium, which will cause movement of the deuterium through the lattice. Just having loaded deuterium into palladium is not enough, and that's what (1) is about. Note, by the way, that the absorption of D into Pd is exothermic, so desorption itself is endothermic.


As will all chemical reactions, the equilibrium depends on the concentration. In process of electrolysis there is large excess of D, so it adsorbs. Once excess is removed, it de-sorbs. But later can be kinetically limited and system can stay for long time out of equilibrium until some stimulus (in this case stress)
is applied. Desorption is typically endothermic because it increases entropy, but in this case it is followed
by recombination of two atoms into a molecule (H+H=H2, same with D), which is a highly exothermic process. So overall result is exothermic.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2010
Again, this is wrong. You're ignoring most of the fundamentals of Einstein's theories without any valid justification.

Where am I doing so?
And you cannot have only waves with no particles. As soon as you observe the waveform collapses and the wave ceases to be.

Why can it not just collapse into a smaller wave?
Violating the Point Particle tenets of particle physics to exemplify your point might fly with most people, but not with me.

Obviously not because you are wedded to such claptrap as "wave-particle" duality.
Matter loses mass on emission due to E-MC^2, this is all basic, basic stuff. Just because light doesn't conform to F-ma doesn't mean there is no inertia.

Obviously, it does
You need to read something a bit more modern than Galileo, especially as Galileo could only deal in relativity due to the technology limitation of the time.

If you cannot even understand Galileo you will do yourself a favour to stop reading and expounding BS.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2010
How about becoming a street sweeper: You will then be more useful to society.

Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2010
johan,

Good luck my friend, I'm quite surprised you've done as well as you have in that backwater country.

When you gain access to proper equipment and get a chance to test your insane theories that overturn all of established physics and bring us back to simplistic netwonian no-particle mechanics, give me a call.
abdlomax
not rated yet Mar 24, 2010
"In process of electrolysis there is large excess of D, so it adsorbs. Once excess is removed, it de-sorbs." Again, this could be misunderstood. Palladium is quite hungry for deuterium, so even the smallest amount of deuterium generated in close contact with palladium will be absorbed, until the palladium is packed. Codeposition experiments build up palladium with deuterium at the same time. These don't start bubbling until the palladium is all deposited from solution and fully loaded. Then, typically, more current is applied, which may add a little more deuterium as described. That addition might be endothermic, most generated deuterium at this point will bubble away. Then, later, current off, some will bubble out. A little. Most of the deuterium will stay put if all you do is turn off the current, I believe, though there has to be some rate of escape due to Brownian motion. Call it evaporation.
Yevgen
4.5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2010
Only when going from Palladium Deuteride to Palladium Hydride. When working with a cooling Pd tube as the Chinese have done you exploit the Exothermic properties of deuteride solution as well by slowly cooling the Pd tube over time this addressing the endothermic losses caused during desorption and dissolution.

http://iopscience...igration


Interesting. I wish they would have repeated it with hydrogen to make clear if this effect is purely chemical
or anything else is at play. Position of the critical
temperature could also slightly shift that could tell us something.
What I noticed is that integral of the heat flow above (positive) and below critical temperature (negative) appears to be similar, as you would expect. Critical temperature could have something to do with activation energy of dissociation of D+D D2 at surface of Pd.
deatopmg
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2010
We've got opinions, opinions, and more opinions but few have followed this from the beginning 21 yrs ago by reading all the literature (actually it started in the USSR in the early '60's). And we've got experimental physicist(s) who refuse to read the very extensive literature because they know it's impossible. Try www.lenr.org for a start.

High energy physics needs an alpha of 100 or more because of all the inefficiencies in the process not to mention the high probability that magnetic confinement is a dead end because of all the neutrons emitted. 50 yrs ago it was 50 yrs away, today it still is 50 yrs away.

Something's happening here (LENR), what it is is not exactly clear but there is a small net heat gain of 10 - 30% at room temp. The heat gain (& reaction rate) goes up exponentially w/ temp. There are many ways of fusing D2 to He and T2 and n that have been demonstrated. And the problem is clearly not faulty calorimetry as so many HE physicists insisted from '89.

Bloodoflamb
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2010
In which inertial reference frame is light stationary? You do not even understand special relativity!!!! How stupid can a person be?
Imagine a hollow box whose insides are perfectly reflecting. Move it around, and it responds with an inertial mass m.

Now fill the box with light such that the total energy of the light is E. If you try to move the box around now, it will respond with an inertial mass m+(E/c^2). You think the matter is somehow instantaneously taking on the energy then instantaneously releasing it again? To use a word you seem to be so fond of: CLAPTRAP! The field has the inertia and always does. And the field is made up of light!

Light gravitates. Not just towards objects, but it in fact induces gravitational effects on other objects. Sounds like it's acting an awful lot like mass to me! Call it energy if you want, same damned thing.
Light can only have inertia when it interacts with matter.
You mean always?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2010
Good luck my friend, I'm quite surprised you've done as well as you have in that backwater country.

When you gain access to proper equipment and get a chance to test your insane theories that overturn all of established physics and bring us back to simplistic netwonian no-particle mechanics, give me a call.


Thanks for your good wishes. In fact what you wish for me has already been achieved by myself in this backwater country. My book will be published before the end of this year in which it is shown, to only mention a few aspects, that:
1. A quantum of light is NOT a particle
2. The intensity of an electron wave is its mass: Not a probability distribution.
3. A solitary electron wave moves like a particle because it has a centre of mass.
4. De Broglie's wavelength does not apply to electron-states around a nucleus.
5. De Broglie's wavelength only manifests because it is mandated that it nmust by the Lorentz transformation.
etc.
Go to my website for extracts!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2010
Imagine a hollow box whose insides are perfectly reflecting. Move it around, and it responds with an inertial mass m. Now fill the box with light such that the total energy of the light is E. If you try to move the box around now, it will respond with an inertial mass m+(E/c^2). etc.

I am very glad that you have raised this argument. This is the cavity radiation problem which I treat in detail in my upcoming book. The reason why the light adds mass is because it forms standing waves within the box: Not photon particles. Since the standing waves have no momentum relating to light speed c relative to the box, it has inertia within the inertial reference frame of the box and thus mass-energy. In fact all matter waves are light waves which became stationary within an inertial refrence frame. One can derive Schroedinger's equation and the so-called "spin" of the electron from Maxwell's equations for the electric potential and magnetic vector potential..

johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2010
Light gravitates. Not just towards objects, but it in fact induces gravitational effects on other objects. Sounds like it's acting an awful lot like mass to me! Call it energy if you want, same damned thing.

Like all physicists I have encountered you clearly do not interpret relativity theory correctly. Even Einstein did not: He derived length contraction without an ether which can only occur if there is an ether.
Light does not "gravitate" it follows a straight path which seems curved from another reference frame accelerating relative to te refrence frame in which it is following a straight path. It is like dropping a bomb from am aeroplane. Relative to the aeroplane it follows a striaght path downwards but relative to an observer on the ground it follows a bent path: a parabolic path.
You mean always?

When it interacts with matter and the curvature of space around matter, it can slow down so that it has a speed less than c. Schr. Eq. already unites gravity and QM.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2010
@Bloodoflamb

"Light gravitates"

Since Mathematics is my world and not ahh.."Tangibles", please excuse the naivety of the following question:

Where do the gravitational properties of light come from?

Point me to some kind of literature that could shed light (sorry! no pun intended!) on this.

If I were to attempt an explanation I would start with a number of degrees of freedom in the model that did not exceed the number of pieces of independent information - in the data. :)
bluehigh
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2010
Dr Mills has the answers you all need. Visit blacklightpower.com you will find experimental setups (with complete schematics) that you can duplicate, along with verifiable peer reviewed results. Whatever the theory may be (casimir cavities or GUT), it is now an established fact that significant excess heat can be generated in chemical cells.

To those that refuse to believe and maybe want to protect existing dogma, you will no doubt look foolish if you do not keep an open and inquiring mind.

To the overzealous, beware. The changes associated with these discoveries require explanation and will change our understanding of physics. Expect resistance.

To all, embrace this wonderful scientific discovery. Let us hope that everyone can benefit.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2010
Go to my website for extracts!

I already have, hence why I told you "good luck". Sarcasm never translates well in text.

Where do the gravitational properties of light come from?

From Space-time. Light doesn't generate gravity but it is subject to gravity as spacetime is affected by the placement of mass. Light will travel in a straight line, unless that straight line is curved, ala warped spacetime.
otto1923
not rated yet Mar 25, 2010
momentum relating to light speed c relative to the box, it has inertia within the inertial reference frame of the box and thus mass-energy
So in other words light is not matter, matter is light??!?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2010
So in other words light is not matter, matter is light??!?

Not really, they're both energy, just at different densities. I disagree with johan's assessment that all matter is light at a non-zero inertial framework. It's a violation of E=MC^2 to prevent light from attaining inertia without substantially redefining what light is.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2010
I already have have, hence why I told you "good luck". Sarcasm never translates well in text.

So you were not able to understand Ohm's law in section 1? No problem you are not the only one! You are well within the mean of an average theoretical physicist IQ about 50?
From Space-time. Light doesn't generate gravity but it is subject to gravity as spacetime is affected by the placement of mass. Light will travel in a straight line, unless that straight line is curved, ala warped spacetime.

What you do not understand is that when you add an extra dimension to Einstein's gravitaional relativity, you obtain both Maxwell's equations (as had already been proved by aeons ago) and if taking it a bit further you will see that matter waves also come out as stationary light waves. But I suppose it is too difficult for a dogmatist like you. Rather keep your eyes closed and stay happy!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2010
momentum relating to light speed c relative to the box, it has inertia within the inertial reference frame of the box and thus mass-energy
So in other words light is not matter, matter is light??!?

Both is of course the same except that free light has no inertia and therefore no mass-energy while matter waves, have inertia, and can therefore be stationary within their own inertial reference frames. Therefore the energy of such a stationary matter wave is entirely mass energy. For this reason the intensity of an electron wave is its mass and NOT a probability distribution. When such a wave (for example around a nucleus) aborbs a light wave, the light wave comes to a halt: its non-inertial energy before absorption becomes inertial so that it adds mass energy to the electron-wave absorbing it.
In fact the stopping of a light wave within a matter wave has been shown experimentally on a macrocale by stopping light within a Bose-Einstein condensate of matter.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2010
Johan,

Once you can prove the existence of other dimensions, then we can talk about maxwell's framework as a theory rather than a hypothetical postulate.

Living on the bleeding edge is good for a theoretical physicist like yourself. Difference is, you're often wrong, while I adhere to what is proven and simply debate what is not from a logical standpoint.

If you disagree with physics as it is today, you're in the wrong place. Especially when you're comparing Einsteins constant to "aether", and suggesting ideologies akin to the holographic mind hypothesis.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2010
Not really, they're both energy, just at different densities. I disagree with johan's assessment that all matter is light at a non-zero inertial framework. It's a violation of E=MC^2 to prevent light from attaining inertia without substantially redefining what light is.

Here we disagree: A photon light-wave has no mass and therefore its energy can only be described in terms of its momentum. This is so since it moves with a speed c. Remember E=pc when there is no mass? Inertia is only valid when energy can be stationary within an inertial refrence frame. There is no other definition from the time Galileo who defined inertia
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2010
Once you can prove the existence of other dimensions, then we can talk about maxwell's framework as a theory rather than a hypothetical postulate.

It is already proven since it is inherent in Schroedinger's wave equation. The harmonic vibrations do not occur within three-dimensional space but outside of it owing to the extra space dimension.
Living on the bleeding edge is good for a theoretical physicist like yourself.

I am not a theoretical physicist but was forced to study it in depth after I found ten yeras ago that the superconducting phase that I discovered at room temperature proves that the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong and that quantum feld theory is just pure nonsense.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2010
Difference is, you're often wrong, while I adhere to what is proven and simply debate what is not from a logical standpoint.

Let me give you a small test. Do you believe that there is an electric-field energy around a solitary electron? If you do prove it to me experimentally!
If you disagree with physics as it is today, you're in the wrong place. Especially when you're comparing Einsteins constant to "aether", and suggesting ideologies akin to the holographic mind hypothesis.

I did not do what you accuse me off. Which constant of Einstein? All I am pointing out is that Lorentz postulated length contraction to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment assuming an aether. Einstein said there is no aether; which logically thus do not require length contraction anymore; but then he went ahead and derived length contraction without realising that when there is no aether as well as length contraction the MM experiment will not give a null result!
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2010
Dr Mills has the answers you all need. Visit blacklightpower.com you will find experimental setups (with complete schematics) etc.

I have read about Dr. Mill's theories postulating what I believe he calls "hydrino" states with lower energies than the s-orbital around a hydrogen nucleus. I could not follow his mathematics. Obviously these states cannot form for pure hydrogen or else the ionisation energies measured for hydrogen will be much larger. I am not saying that it is impossible that such states can form, but for this there must be an extra interaction with something else which make them possible. I could not find this in Dr. Mill's derivations.
Slotin
1 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2010
IMO Arata's experiments with cold fusion and Dr. Mill's experiments involving anomalous heat production at nickel hydrides may be related mutually. Inside of porous nickel or palladium cavities the Casimir force phenomena could affect the activation energy of some nuclear reactions, involving electron capture by deuterons.

Illustratively speaking, the high concentratuon of virtual photons inside of cavities could make vacuum more dense, then in bulk state - which could decrease the force constants and the energies of fundamental quantum states there.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2010
Let me give you a small test. Do you believe that there is an electric-field energy around a solitary electron? If you do prove it to me experimentally!
I need more information to give you an answer. Is it under observation or just trippin' the vaccuum fantastic?
Einstein said there is no aether; which logically thus do not require length contraction anymore; but then he went ahead and derived length contraction without realising that when there is no aether as well as length contraction the MM experiment will not give a null result!

Einstein's work with Rosen removes the need for aether when dealing with nonlocal warping of space-time fabric.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2010
I need more information to give you an answer. Is it under observation or just trippin' the vaccuum fantastic?

It is a simple high school question: Is there a radial electric energy-field around a solitary charge? You said that you only accept which can be proved: Therefore I am asking whether you accept that there is such a field: A simple YES or NO will suffice. If you do accept that there is such a field I would like you to prove to me that there is such a field.
Einstein's work with Rosen removes the need for aether when dealing with nonlocal warping of space-time fabric.

Again you are sidestepping the question: Let us just stick to the Lorentz transformation and the Michelson Morley experiment. Do you agree that if there is no aether so that the speed of light is the same along both arms, then if the arm along the direction of movement shrinks, there cannot be a null result. Einstein derived this shrinking LONG before he formulated general relativity.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2010
It is a simple high school question:
No, it's not. If not under observation there is no particle and only a field.

Under observation my answer is no, quantum flux precludes this behavior.
Again you are sidestepping the question: Let us just stick to the Lorentz transformation and the Michelson Morley experiment.

This is akin to talking about how the sun goes around the earth within only a ptolemaic framework, regardless of the fact you know there is a lot more to the issue. Are you trying to smear me through dubious manipulation or are you really this ignorant of physics? I've seen you've written some intro papers on BEC and crystaline lattice structural composites. Nothing much above a fly by night university masters degree though.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2010
If not under observation there is no particle and only a field.
Under observation my answer is no, quantum flux precludes this behavior.

These statements are pure speculation. You said you only accept what can be proved. If you are not a liar give me the experimental proof for these two statements!
This is akin to talking about how the sun goes around the earth within only a ptolemaic framework, regardless of the fact you know there is a lot more to the issue.

So you are saying that Einstein's special theory of relativity is nothing better than a Ptolemaic framework? Should it not then immediately be removed from text books which propagate it as correct science?
Are you trying to smear me through dubious manipulation ....

I am not trying to smear you: You are doing it well on your own.
I've seen you've written some intro papers on BEC and crystaline lattice structural composites.

I am not aware of papers on composites: Give references please!
Salander
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2010
Pons and Fleishmann got a bum rap in 1989. They did exploratory experiments and were surprised to measure excess heat. But before they could gather further data and submit to a refereed journal, the word of their discovery was passed around the university's grapevine. They were suddenly paraded before a press conference arranged by the university's press office and chaired by the university's president, where much was said about using the discovery to generate electricity. Then came scientists' complaints about poor-quality data and lack of repeatability that made Pons and Fleishman look like amateurs, whereas they hadn't really carried their research far enough to understand what was going on and get reproducible results. The thunder of disapproval drove them from their university positions and the country, whereupon science lost the expertise of cold fusion's discoverers.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2010
solar is cheaper than all fusion systems on the horizon. And it wont pollute the earth with radioactive poisons.


No, solar tech will just pollute the atmosphere with huge additional volumes of NF3 and SF6, GHGs more than 17,000 and 23,000 times respectively more potent than CO2 and much longer half-lives on the order of centuries. :)
seneca
3 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2010
..lack of repeatability that made Pons and Fleishman look like amateurs..
The situation just reversed, and the original opponents of Pons & Fleishman now appear like amateurs, because they denied their results too fast. This example just illustrates the symmetry of Popper's method of falsification in science: every negation of hypothesis becomes new hypothesis, whole validity should be considered with the same caution, like the original hypothesis.

..solar tech will just pollute the atmosphere with huge additional volumes of NF3 and SF6, GHGs..
This is just a dumb propaganda of fossil fuel lobby, as the usage of NF3 is prohibited in many countries and thin layer solar cells doesn't suffer by these environmental problems at all - they're developed by quite different technologies, then the ancient solar cells made of crystalline silicon.
seneca
3 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2010
..lack of repeatability that made Pons and Fleishman look like amateurs..
The situation just reversed, and the original opponents of Pons & Fleishman now appear like amateurs, because they denied their results too fast. This example just illustrates the symmetry of Popper's method of falsification in science: every negation of hypothesis becomes new hypothesis, whole validity should be considered with the same caution, like the original hypothesis.

..solar tech will just pollute the atmosphere with huge additional volumes of NF3 and SF6, GHGs..
This is just a dumb propaganda of fossil fuel lobby, as the usage of NF3 is prohibited in many countries and modern thin layer solar cells doesn't suffer by these environmental problems at all - they're produced by quite different set of technologies, then the ancient solar cells made of crystalline silicon.
mastercope
1 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2010
I haven't studied this, but it smells like bunk. Show me the reproducible experiments. The wingbats love to "show up" the "experts" -- like their still trying to get over their overbearing father or something. Any real expert would absolutely die to show cold fusion working. Instant Nobel prize and probably instant wealth. No incentive to cover anything up here.

HOW ABOUT YOUR LIFE, SOUNDS LIKE ENOUGH TO ME TO NOT WANT IT KNOWN WITHOUT GOING MAINSTREAM
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2010
Any real expert would absolutely die to show cold fusion working.
So far I never met with attempt to reproduce this video, for example...

http://www.youtub...V_qFKf2M

Everyone had a chance to reproduce it for many years. Maybe all real experts died already...
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2010
So far I never met with attempt to reproduce this video
Everytime someone tries to prove something by providing a video link I'm deeply impressed. By the belief of the onlookers.
RigorMan
1 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2010
Hi, I'm a nuclear physcists and Ph.D.
I never say I'm a Ph.D. and i suspect that the author of this article gives so many Ph.D. just to substantiate his "void" claims. Thi article is pure junk.
The cross section for, let's say deuterium+deuterium fusion is already a very small quantity at the temperature of the surface of the sun (5000+ C) and it goes down exponentially as the temperature diminishes. I don't understand all these waves of excitement: do you understand these semi-scientists are trying to fool government guys to pay for nothing?
Serious plasma fusion is another story (notice they want to achieve the correct regime of densities and temperatures to ignite the fusion reaction).
bluehigh
1 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2010
Hi, I'm a Nuclear Research Engineer and Ph.D in Solid State Physics.

I often tell bigoted, narrow minded twits my qualifications before ignoring closed minded stupidity.

Serious science is not a narrow minded regurgitation of dogma. Remain teachable or get out of the way.

Since when has any serious and successful high eneregy plasma fusion been documented?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2010
oh okay ...

I've done it for (less than) a few pico-seconds.
Yawn!

Back to the money shower? Why not?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 29, 2010
This is just a dumb propaganda of fossil fuel lobby, as the usage of NF3 is prohibited in many countries and modern thin layer solar cells doesn't suffer by these environmental problems at all - they're produced by quite different set of technologies, then the ancient solar cells made of crystalline silicon.

What do you think they clean the thin film cells with? That's right, Nitrogen Trifluoride.
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2010
This is just a dumb propaganda of fossil fuel lobby, as the usage of NF3 is prohibited in many countries and thin layer solar cells doesn't suffer by these environmental problems at all - they're developed by quite different technologies, then the ancient solar cells made of crystalline silicon.


Ummm, no. You are quite wrong. NF3 is used in the cleaning phase of the manufacturing process of thin-film photovoltaics themselves. It has been recommended that companies switch to F2 rather than use NF3. Many manufacturers still use NF3, however. Can you tell us where NF3 has been banned? It is not covered by Kyoto and I am curious as to specifics.

http://www.ens-ne...4-01.asp
taka
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2010
Catalyst do what - it moves atoms that do not want to go together so close that they react. Reaction is energetically positive, but before it can happen strong repelling forces had to be overcome. Heat alone can do it but then it mast be really hot. It can be shown that this reaction is super slow in low temperatures, as thermal movement does not have enough energy to push atoms together. Still catalyst does it somehow. It does it by concentrating energy that is other way not enough into small place and there it is enough (or some like more to tell that it lowers the energy barrier, that is synonym of previous). Why it is so difficult do believe that some substances / conditions can move atoms so close that instead of chemical reaction the nuclear reaction will take place?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 29, 2010
Why it is so difficult do believe that some substances / conditions can move atoms so close that instead of chemical reaction the nuclear reaction will take place?
Because the coulomb barrier exists.
taka
3 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2010
Barriers can be broken not just by brute heat, but by some energy concentration process.
taka
not rated yet Mar 29, 2010
Light cannot slow down. It is defined so - the space is something where the light moves straight and with the speed of the light and there is no other measure of distance in the space. If somebody observes light to slow down then actually the space it is traveling through is extended or light gets transformed into something else in between.

Light also have rather big (infinite?) inertia, inertia show how easy is to accelerate the thing, but light does not accelerate at all. Better to agree that to talk about light inertia is meaningless. But of course the light has a mass. E=mc2 -> m=E/c2

It is rater popular theory that all mass of particles comes actually this way, oscillating energy is locked inside (in the form of some standing wave) and generates a mass (if it have also rotational component then also a spin is generated).
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2010
Barriers can be broken not just by brute heat, but by some energy concentration process.

Which would no longer be a "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction." "Hot fusion" isn't hot because of heat. It's hot because of energy concentration. That is why we're working with lasers on deuteride tablets.
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Mar 29, 2010
Light cannot slow down....


That is no longer considered true. Individual photons can indeed be slowed. They have been slowed considerably in various experiments. They also are slowed and/or trajectory altered by other processes that occur in nature such as in the Sun or by gravity.

Light that we see today emanating from the surface of the Sun has been convected from the core to the surface in terms of a million or so years, give or take.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2010
Light also have rather big (infinite?) inertia, inertia show how easy is to accelerate the thing, but light does not accelerate at all. Better to agree that to talk about light inertia is meaningless. But of course the light has a mass. E=mc2 -> m=E/c2

Wrong again: Inertia has only one meaning: Energy with inertia is stationary within an inertial reference frame when there is no force acting on this energy. Light-energy in vacuum can never be stationary within an inertial refrence frame. Thus it has no inertia until it is slowed down to move with a speed less that c. This, for example, happens when it moves through glass and is refracted. Only then can one associate mass with part of this light energy. That mass is energy does not mean that all energy is mass. The fact that an elephant is a mammal does not mean that all mammals are elephants.
taka
not rated yet Mar 30, 2010
"Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion." This definition is taken from Wikipedia, but others I know have similar meaning. Inertial frame is not necessary and do not apply for rotational inertia at all.

And also, why it is impossible to have inertial frame moving with speed of light?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 30, 2010
Inertia has only one meaning: Energy with inertia is stationary within an inertial reference frame when there is no force acting on this energy.
That's incorrect. You know it is, we've already had this conversation.
taka
not rated yet Mar 30, 2010
Light we see emanating from the Sun has been absorbed and reemanated trillions of times. And there is delay before light is reemanated.

The glass is trickier of course, but all substances we have here on the Earth are rather empty inside, even atom nucleolus is mostly empty. I find next explanation from Wikipedia: The charges will, in general, oscillate slightly out of phase with respect to the driving electric field. The charges thus radiate their own electromagnetic wave that is at the same frequency but with a phase delay. The macroscopic sum of all such contributions in the material is a wave with the same frequency but shorter wavelength than the original, leading to a slowing of the wave's phase velocity. Most of the radiation from oscillating material charges will modify the incoming wave, changing its velocity.

Gravity is the easiest. It curves space and light just fallows this curved space. Atoms do the same thing and therefore distance throw substance is also longer.
taka
not rated yet Mar 30, 2010
If johanofprins is correct in his claim that light in the vacuum (what is vacuum actually, how many atoms per km3 is allowed?) does not have mass then that effect should be measurable and that will mean that mass is not conserved.

I suspect experiments where photons seem to slow are actually dealing with standing waves between reflectors (standing wave is superposition of many moving waves). Because if light really slow down then Einstein theory claiming that c is constant is proved wrong (remember, matter is also mostly empty inside).
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2010
"Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion." This definition is taken from Wikipedia, .... Inertial frame is not necessary and do not apply for rotational inertia at all.

Rotation is in essence the same but the mathematics is more complicated: But let us first concentrate on linear inertia: Motion means that the object with inertia is stationary within an inertial reference frame travelling with it. It only seems to move when viewed from another inertial refrence frame.
And also, why it is impossible to have inertial frame moving with speed of light?

Since any inertial reference frame can have a body with mass stationary within it, and since a body with mass cannot move with the speed of light, an inertial refrence frame can also not move with the speed of light.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2010
Inertia has only one meaning: Energy with inertia is stationary within an inertial reference frame when there is no force acting on this energy.
That's incorrect. You know it is, we've already had this conversation.

It is not: Inertia only acts as a resistance to being moved because the body with mass is in stable equilibrium within an inertial reference frame; and thus wants to remain in this equilibrium state. When applying a force, the resistance is caused by a restoring force as in any situation when one wants to move a body from stable equilibrium. It is however the stable equilibrium which is the inertia which inn turn causes the restoring force. Sceptic-Heretic, why do you just answer those issues you want to answer and run away from questions you do not want to answer? Maybe your name should be changed to Gullible-Dogmatic.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2010
If johanofprins is correct in his claim that light in the vacuum .. does not have mass then that effect should be measurable and that will mean that mass is not conserved.
Mass is a form of energy and need not be conserved on its own. Only the sumtotal of all energy is conserved.
I suspect experiments where photons seem to slow are actually dealing with standing waves between reflectors

You are getting there!
Because if light really slow down then Einstein theory claiming that c is constant is proved wrong (remember, matter is also mostly empty inside).

Not so, when light moves with a speed lower than c, it can be stationary within an inertial reference frame along the direction it is moving in and thus has inertia and thus mass-energy.
I do not agree that matter is mostly empty inside: The space between nuclei is filled with stationary electron waves. The intensity of these waves are proportional to their mass This is hardly "empty space".
taka
not rated yet Mar 31, 2010
It is probably better to left light inertia alone; there is mathematical singularity in this point (division with zero). But inertial reference frame is purely mathematical concept; it cannot affect what really happens. So, I find hard to believe that light in the vacuum does not have mass (why some energy manifest as mass and some should not, at least it require damn good explanation), but that is and idea for experiment we are not able to do, so we can let it alone also.

I am more interested why the nice explanation of what happens with light inside glass did not get any comments. I agree that space in the glass is mostly filled with electrons that are smeared all around. But there exists situations were space is filled with electrons alone, does light slow there also? What if space is filled just by electromagnetic fields (all space actually is)? It is actually interesting topic and not well studied I guess.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2010
But inertial reference frame is purely mathematical concept; it cannot affect what really happens

All physics, from Newton to QM, is based on the concept of inertia: Defined as the property of an entity with mass to be stationary within an inertial frame moving with it. This mandates that the position and momentum of the centre-of mass must manifest simultaneously. Heisenberg said the latter is not possible and thus wiped all known physics from the table. Inertia explains gravitation; thus by saying it is not possible for position and momentum to manifest simultaneously, gravitation cannot be modelled: And then we are surprised that QM and gravitation cannot be reconciled!! How utterly stupid can a person be?
But there exists situations were space is filled with electrons alone, does light slow there also?

Not as e-"particles": They do not exist! Light obviously slows down when it entangles with an electron-wave. It does so for an electron-wave around the nucleus.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2010
What if space is filled just by electromagnetic fields (all space actually is)? It is actually interesting topic and not well studied I guess.

The penny has dropped! This is exactly the case:
Free light is an EM-field without inertia: i.e. a light wave does not have a centre-of-mass.
Matter consists of EM-fields with inertia. A free electron is a standing electron wave within its inertial refrence frame and thus has a centre-of mass. Its mass energy is determined by its electric-field energy (just as Lorentz always suspected) and its magnetic moment (so called "spin") is determined by the corresponding magnetic-field component.
Relative to another inertial refrence frame the electron-wave moves and the Lorentz transformation then causes wave-fronts to form so that the electron can diffract.
Thus the Schroedinger equation is the electric-field equation for an EM-wave with inertia and Maxwell's equations model the EM-field equations when there is no inertia.
taka
not rated yet Mar 31, 2010
Light entanglement with electron(wave) in the glass was described as light pump its energy into electron and then electron radiates another light wave, that happen a moment later and therefore it seems that light slow down.

Light speed is property of space; it is too primitive just to allow it to slow down sometimes if it seems convenient. It defines both time and distance, does it simultaneously and that can be the reason time and distance become entangled in some measurements.

For gravitation I remember one theory that tell that there is no such thing actually, it is a big illusion. Vacuum applies radiation pressure for anything and things do not attract, they just screen this pressure from each other. Probably not true, but as good as others and idea is really nice.
taka
not rated yet Mar 31, 2010
I see your point. But, there is also relation with electron and light. Light has identical fields as electron, only they are organized differently. So, it is logical to assume that electron is nothing else then light swirled somehow into closed loop. This involve that light should have mass obviously. This theory (I see it somewhere) goes on and claims that all other particles are also swirled light, only they are swirled differently. There is just as many possible modes light can be swirled as there are particles and there was also math that describes it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2010
Light entanglement with electron(wave) in the glass was described as light pump its energy into electron and then electron radiates another light wave, that happen a moment later and therefore it seems that light slow down.

It does not "seem" that light slows down: It actually slows down and momentarily stops "within the electron wave" by entangling with the electron wave adding mass; whence it is emitted. You can measure the time that light takes to move through glass and prove that it is longer than it would be if the glass were not there; because of "slip-stick" movement.
It is thus not surprising that one can stop a light pulse completely within a Bose-Einstein Condensate. The latter is a single, holistic matter wave (with mass) on a macro-scale. It most definitey does not consist of "boson-particles". To describe superfluid helium as a BEC is pure nonsense since the latter consist of seperately identifiable atom-waves, each of which is a BEC in its own right.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2010
I see your point. ..... There is just as many possible modes light can be swirled as there are particles and there was also math that describes it.

Very Good Taka: It is nice to finally meet somebody with brains on a physics forum! What should also be noted is that a solution of Schroedinger's equation is already commensurate with Einstein's gravity: The intensity of the wave is its mass and the so-called "tunnelling tails" are the curvature of space around mass.
When irraditing a metal with light, light entangles with electron waves. When the mass of an electron wave after entanglement exceeds the rest mass of the electron wave, it has kinetic energy and is ejected. Thus the photo-electric effect is a pure wave phenomenon. A photon is not a particle but an actual light wave which collapses to entangle with an electron wave. Bohr's complementarity is thus the same as BCS without the C: So is BCS itself!
bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2010
As for the topography of photons being a explanation for other particle types (eg electrons and by association protons etc), thats a bit of an imaginative stretch. Any evidence or are you just promoting for your next science fiction convention appearance?

Aye Captain, converting Photons to Matter now. Your Roast Chicken with vegetables is ready.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2010
As for the topography of photons being a explanation for other particle types (eg electrons and by association protons etc), thats a bit of an imaginative stretch. Any evidence or are you just promoting for your next science fiction convention appearance? Aye Captain, converting Photons to Matter now. Your Roast Chicken with vegetables is ready.

What do you think happens to a photon when it is absorbed by an electron around a nucleus? It adds mass to the atom. The electron-wave around the atom which absorbs the photon then changes its topology (morphs in shape and size) to accommodate this change of the photon into mass-energy.
YOU are the one who prefers science fiction: aka Bohr's principle of complementarity and the Copenhagen interpretation: "Aye captain, there is actually millions of chickens in your plate which you just cannot observe, but if you look carefully one of them will appear so that you can eat it: Bon appetit!
taka
not rated yet Apr 01, 2010
How matter is made from vacuum is possible to read here:
http://en.wikiped...oduction
It is not even theory any more, it is well tested fact.
taka
not rated yet Apr 01, 2010
What happens to photon when it is absorbed? It ceases to exist as a photon of course and become part of whoever absorbs it. It is only next step from there to assume that it do not change in this transformation, it just become locked inside. This particle theory I mention I see many years ago somewhere on the paper, I do not remember where.

But now I find one page that propagates similar idea: http://www.blazel...wave.asp
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 01, 2010
"Aye captain, there is actually millions of chickens in your plate which you just cannot observe, but if you look carefully one of them will appear so that you can eat it: Bon appetit!

Spoken like a true QM skeptic.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2010
Spoken like a true QM skeptic.

At last we seem to be approaching common ground!
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 01, 2010
Spoken like a true QM skeptic.

At last we seem to be approaching common ground!

Only on what our knowledge of your stance is.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2010

Only on what our knowledge of your stance is.

Planck stated that some people first have to die before physics can progress. Maybe you are such a person?
googleplex
not rated yet Apr 01, 2010
I find it curious that QM breaks down at short distance...or so I read. It is almost as if there is a quantum foam of oscilating energy at the plank scale. Now if I could just harvest some of the background energy from the quantum foam oscillations.
The whole quantum thing is mind blowing. Effectively the universe is descrete and not a continuum (as electronic engineers would say digital as opposed to analogue).
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2010
The whole quantum thing is mind blowing. Effectively the universe is descrete and not a continuum (as electronic engineers would say digital as opposed to analogue).

This is the misconception that stems from quantum field theory: You are correct it is a "digital" theory and therefore it is based on "virtual reality": Just like computer games and digital music. There is no foam: There are only wave-fields. If Born is correct that a Schroedinger wave is a probability distribution, then the most probable position to find an electron for most of these waves, is at a point where the wave intensity is zero. This is obviously insane!
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 02, 2010

Only on what our knowledge of your stance is.

Planck stated that some people first have to die before physics can progress. Maybe you are such a person?

He was referring to those who refuse and dispute experimentally proven new ideas.

I believe you would be the type of person he was reffering to seeing as you dispute the existence of experimentally observed mechanisms.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2010
I believe you would be the type of person he was reffering to seeing as you dispute the existence of experimentally observed mechanisms.

That is a blatant lie! Which experimentally observed mechanisms do I dispute? I only dispute interpretations of experimental data, especially when the interpreters do not even understand undergraduate mathematics and statistics! Examples of such people are Born, Aharanov and Bohm, Josephson etc.; and then, for example, erroneously deduce that electrons must form pairs for superconduction to be possible! Amazing how people like you just swallow claptrap without being sceptical enough.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 02, 2010
That is a blatant lie! Which experimentally observed mechanisms do I dispute? I only dispute interpretations of experimental data, especially when the interpreters do not even understand undergraduate mathematics and statistics! Examples of such people are Born, Aharanov and Bohm, Josephson etc.; and then, for example, erroneously deduce that electrons must form pairs for superconduction to be possible! Amazing how people like you just swallow claptrap without being sceptical enough.

I'm not the one who announced my skepticism of quantum mechanics on the whole as you did above.

You say I'm swallowing claptrap, however without those innovations in thought we wouldn't have been able to complete the YBCO superconduction experiments, nor would we be able to certify the findings repeatedly.

The presence of the Meissner effect at low temperature reveals the level of quackery and boundless ineptitude that you spew into this forum.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2010
The presence of the Meissner effect at low temperature reveals the level of quackery and boundless ineptitude that you spew into this forum.

Just to prove to you how inept you are: The defining characteristic ofsuperconduction is the fact that there is no electric-field present that can cause an electric-current to manifest. THIS IS AN EXPERIMENTAL FACT!! All the models for the Meissner effect are based on the inherent assumption that an induced electric-field can drive a current within a superconductor. It contradicts experimental fact.
The fact is that you can have a model which you think explains an effect but it is just plain claptrap. You think you can explain the Meiisner effect by induced currents while they are not physically possible within a superconductor at all. So you swallow this claptrap and arrogantly defend the cloud cuckoo land in which you live. Tsk! Tsk! That is why, according to Planck, one will have to wait for you, and people like you, to die off.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2010
I'm not the one who announced my skepticism of quantum mechanics on the whole as you did above

Another example of how you can blatantly lie and distort facts to suit your existence in cloud cuckoo land. Where did I announce my scepticism of quantum mechanics "on the whole"? I am only pointing out that the accepted mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics is claptrap. After all it is a simple fact that for most wave functions the "expected position of an electron" according to Born, are at positions where the wave intensity is zero. But of course, somebody like you will defend mainstream thought, no matter how ridiculous it is. Therefore Planck is correct about you!
...been able to complete the YBCO superconduction experiments,

You cannot even derive why and how YBCO's critical temperature changes with oxygen content. My model can: But I will have to wait until you die so that fresher young minds can see the truth: Again just like Planck said!
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 03, 2010
Just to prove to you how inept you are: The defining characteristic ofsuperconduction is the fact that there is no electric-field present that can cause an electric-current to manifest. THIS IS AN EXPERIMENTAL FACT!! All the models for the Meissner effect are based on the inherent assumption that an induced electric-field can drive a current within a superconductor. It contradicts experimental fact.

HAHAHA, how can you get magnetic and electric confused when talking about superconduction?

Yes it is electromagnetic field mathematics however, magnetic and electric fields have been decoupled in how they respond due to the basics of QM.

By denying a whole wing of physics you force yourself to be incorrect in your assertions.

Thanks for the laugh.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2010
HAHAHA, . etc.? Yes it is electromagnetic field mathematics however, magnetic and electric fields have been decoupled in how they respond due to the basics of QM.

Please prove this ridiculous statement by experiment.
By denying a whole wing of physics you force yourself to be incorrect in your assertions.

I am not denying anything which can be experimentally proved. So again, how has this "whole wing" of physics been proved experimentally? I am not interested in Copenhagen hallucinations but experimental facts only!!
The fact is that a supercurrent is NOT caused by any electric-field whether conservative or magnetically induced. If it could have been so, one would always measure a voltage!. The defining characteristic of superconduction is that this is NOT possible. This is the experimental fact.
Thanks for the laugh.

I should be laughing: But one should rather feel empathy for such a complete lack of brain cells!
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 04, 2010
The defining characteristic of superconduction is that this is NOT possible.

Actually the defining attribute is an inability to determine voltage from ampacity as the ampacity is infinite. You wouldn't be able to measure a loss in voltage, but any applied electricity should go in and come out at the same speed. Misunderstanding or misrepresenting?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2010
Actually the defining attribute is an inability to determine voltage from ampacity as the ampacity is infinite. You wouldn't be able to measure a loss in voltage, but any applied electricity should go in and come out at the same speed.

"Ampacity" which is "infinite" What a laugh! Stop using semantics as if it can explain physics!
Please stick to actual physics and give the mechanism to explain how a single injected charge is transferred from the injection contact to ejection contact with a speed which is totally determined by the characteristics of the superconductor. The experimental fact is that the speed with which such a charge is injected is NOT the speed with which it moves through the superconductor. Even when injecting such a charge at different speeds it still takes THE SAME TIME to reach the other contact and eject. I ask you again to stick to experimentally verifiable facts; Please!!!!!
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 05, 2010
"Ampacity" which is "infinite" What a laugh!
That's the definition of superconduction. Infinite ampacity through a medium. Do you not understand basic electrical definitions? At infinite ampacity your electrcity travels at C, hence how your "time" based analysis is flawed.

Seriously, this is very basic stuff.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2010
That's the definition of superconduction. Infinite ampacity through a medium. Do you not understand basic electrical definitions? At infinite ampacity your electrcity travels at C, hence how your "time" based analysis is flawed.
Seriously, this is very basic stuff.

Superconduction has NOTHING to to with "infinite ampacity". The rate at which charge is transferred from contact to contact through a superconductor varies from SC to SC; and also changes with temperature. This is basic real physics which can be proved in a laboratory by anybody who has a few brain cells in his head. In fact it is easy to derive it from the known measured data on SC's.
Maybe you even have some trouble with spelling: Maybe what you are grabbing out of the air to "define" SC should be termed ampARSEcity. This will define your scientific capabilities very well indeed! Please try and do physics instead of relying on semantics!!
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 05, 2010
Please try and do physics instead of relying on semantics!!


Superconduction is a single phase, rates of superconductivity are not superconductivity.

The measure is resistanceless transmission, ie: infinite ampacity. If you don't understand the term, google is your friend.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2010
Superconduction is a single phase, rates of superconductivity are not superconductivity.

Even the BCS crowd accepts that charge is transferred through a superconductor by charge-carriers. Although Cooper Pairs do not exist, the fact remains that there are charge-carriers and charge-carriers have drift velocities and thus they transport charge through a SC at a rate!
The measure is resistanceless transmission, ie: infinite ampacity. If you don't understand the term, google is your friend.

Zero resistance has NEVER been defined in the scientific literature. Please first give a model to define this concept before deriving infinite ampacity from it. Then give me the experimental results that prove that inf ampacity CAUSES superconduction. If it is just a property of a SC, it cannot be used to explain SC, unless you can first explain where it comes from. It is amazing that I have to keep on teaching you simple logic! I hope you are not a scientist. If you are God help us!
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 06, 2010
Then give me the experimental results that prove that inf ampacity CAUSES superconduction.

I did not say that. I said superconduction allows for infinite ampacity. By BCS are you referring to BEC? There are no charge carriers in BEC superconduction.

Are you seriously that handicapped when it comes to reading?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2010
I did not say that. I said superconduction allows for infinite ampacity.

Maybe it does, but it has not yet been experimentally proved as far as I know. Even if it does, why did you bring it into the argument?
By BCS are you referring to BEC? There are no charge carriers in BEC superconduction.

To ensure that we do not talk past each other: Would you please define to me what you understand under BEC. If you do not spout the same nonsense one reads in text books, we might even reach some consensus.
Are you seriously that handicapped when it comes to reading?

Maybe I am: It will, however, help if you could formulate your thoughts more clearly so that I can understand what you are trying to drive at. For example, it will help if you define the terms you uase: Like for example "zero resistance". What is it and how do you measure it?
taka
1 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2010
From Wikipedia:
Ampacity, the term is defined as the maximum amount of current a cable can carry before sustaining immediate or progressive deterioration.

This mean the term is from engineering, it does not have ANY connections to physic. And ampacity of SC is not infinite, it has final value where current destroy SC state. Other way SC magnets with infinite strength would be possible.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 08, 2010
To ensure that we do not talk past each other: Would you please define to me what you understand under BEC. If you do not spout the same nonsense one reads in text books, we might even reach some consensus.

Bose - Einstein Condensate, when the content energy of a mass of atoms is lowered to a state where a super positional wave form overrides all seperate wave forms. Effectively you form a single super particle by matching the wave forms of all other atoms in situ making each particle indeterminant from each other particle.

Ampacity, the term is defined as the maximum amount of current a cable can carry before sustaining immediate or progressive deterioration.

Ampacity is acted upon only by resistance under Ohm's laws. Superconduction is the lack of resistance. Infinite ampacity is a byproduct of a true superconductor. As superconduction expels magnetic interaction, termed the Messnier effect, there would be no potential to create an infinite strength magnet.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2010
Bose - Einstein Condensate, when the content energy of a mass of atoms is lowered to a state where a super positional wave form overrides all seperate wave forms.

You pass with flying colours! I would, however, like to use two other words to rephrase your statement: A BEC is a macro- "holistic" wave formed by the "entangelement" of many smaller "holistic" waves.
Effectively you form a single super particle by matching the wave forms of all other atoms in situ making each particle indeterminant from each other particle.

Here we differ in terminolgy: If you mean by "super particle" a "holistic" wave with a centre of mass, we are on the same wavelength: If you mean that it is a "super point particle", then I think you are talking nonsense. If your wave is a "super particle" as you claim, then this "super particle" must be spread over a latge volume. It can thus not be a point-particle but an extended body.
Section 1.9 of my book posted on my website for more.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2010
NOW:
The fact is that your definition of BEC does not fit ANY superconducting phase (except one) which have been discovered to date. The ONLY phase that it describes accurately is the one I have discovered; which is formed by electrons extracted from an n-type diamond by an anode. Owing to the dipole-field that has to be cancelled, the electron density becomes so high that their individual waves overlap to form a BEC between the diamond cathode and the anode. The electrons probably first overlap to form pairs which then overlap further to form a BEC.
In all other materials, the superconducting phase is formed by arrays of separate localised wave-"orbitals". In a metal this requires a metal-insulator transition which, when the temperature is low enough, allows "hopping" of these orbitals by quantum fluctuations. So although the array of orbitals form from superpostions of the valence electron waves, such an array is NOT a BEC as defined by you above. See section 23 of my book.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2010
Ampacity is acted upon only by resistance under Ohm's laws.

Correct statement. BUT exactly here you make the classic mistake which has been made for nearly 100 years now. The fact is that Ohm's law DOES NOT APPLY TO A SUPERCONDUCTOR. Ohm's law is ONLY valid when the charge carriers are sequentially accelerated and scattered at such a high rate that one can asign an average drift velocity to them. In a superconsuctor there are no acceleration-scattering events: So one cannot use Ohm's law to define zero resistance within a superconductor.
Superconduction is the lack of resistance.

Sure you can use superconduction to define what is zero resistance, but this does not and cannot relate to Ohm's law. You can thus not use this zero resistance to deduce ampacity for a superconductor. QED
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 08, 2010
So although the array of orbitals form from superpostions of the valence electron waves, such an array is NOT a BEC as defined by you above.


I read parts of your book between our conversations and I disagree with what you're calling a BEC being a BEC. How do you determine that you've created a superposition of wave forms without interrupting said wave forms and returning to simple superconduction?

And I agree with your stance that point-particle is a silly term when speaking in terms of QM and wave form as there's no possible way for a point particle to be an accurate representation of what's going on. It's utter nonsense. Through my understanding of QM, there is no such thing as a point particle, simply an array of potentials within a wave form, the most probable being the "point".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2010
I read parts of your book between our conversations and I disagree with what you're calling a BEC being a BEC.

If you refer to my original book (SC at RT without CP), then I agree that at that stage I was still confused about BEC. This was so since I still believed in the Copenhagen claptrap. This does not invalidate the model on superconduction [presented in that book]. The excerpts on my website do not yet include my present views on BEC; namely that it is a single holistic wave with a centre-of-mass.
How do you determine that you've created a superposition of wave forms without interrupting said wave forms ...

It happens when you have a metal-insulator transition. Delocalised waves superpose to form localised states. This has been modelled by Anderson and Mott and fits experimental results rather well.
.... and returning to simple superconduction?

You are again using a term without defining it. What do you mean by "simple superconduction"?

johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2010
And I agree with your stance that point-particle is a silly term ......... It's utter nonsense.

Great we agree!
Through my understanding of QM, there is no such thing as a point particle, simply an array of potentials within a wave form, the most probable being the "point".

You are again using semantics. What is this "point" and where is the centre-of-mass of the matter represented? The concept of "point" is purely mathematical. The fact is that all matter ONLY consist of holistic waves; each having a TIME-INDEPENDENT intensity distribution within three-dimensional space for as LONG AS THE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS DO NOT CHANGE. When the boundary conditions change the wave has to morph in shape and size: It can either collapse into a smaller volume (NOT A POINT) or inflate to occupy a larger volume.
The intensity of ALL waves represent energy energy: Thus the intensity of a matter wave MUST be its mass-energy. It is utter claptrap to equate it with "probability".
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 09, 2010
What is this "point" and where is the centre-of-mass of the matter represented? The concept of "point" is purely mathematical.
Again, agreed it is purely a mathematical and observational artifact and holds no real value. The center of mass cannot be determined along any intersection of the wave function, it may only be averaged from probable mass calculations against the sum of all wave intersections. I disagree that probability shouldn't be a factor as we now know "God does indeed play dice with the Universe"
The fact is that all matter ONLY consist of holistic waves; each having a TIME-INDEPENDENT intensity distribution within three-dimensional space for as LONG AS THE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS DO NOT CHANGE.


Here's our fundamental disagreement. There is no manner in which a wave form can have static boundary conditions within our known and observed existence. As "time" progresses, information increases, continually reestablishing the boundary conditions.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2010
Again, agreed it is purely a mathematical and observational artifact and holds no real value. The center of mass cannot be determined along any intersection of the wave function, it may only be averaged from probable mass calculations against the sum of all wave intersections.

Prove thisstatement by experiment please: EVERY equation in physics is based on Galileo's inertia which DEMANDS that the centre-of-mass MUST be stationary within its own inertial reference frame. Even SChr. equation is invalid if this is not so!!
I disagree that probability shouldn't be a factor as we now know "God does indeed play dice with the Universe"

"As WE know"? I do not know it since I do not believe in BS. For most of your "probability waves" the "most probable" position to find "a particle" is at a point where the intensity is zero!! How can you interpret the standard deviation around such a position as an uncertainty in postion? Only a deranged mind will be able to do so.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2010
Here's our fundamental disagreement. There is no manner in which a wave form can have static boundary conditions within our known and observed existence. As "time" progresses, information increases, continually reestablishing the boundary conditions.

Derive this from the Schroedinger equation please? You know this is BS since the Schroedinger equation gives you time-independent solutions with non-changing intensities within three dimensional space. This is simple first year physics my man!! "Information", "ampacity", zero resistance": What is the next irrelevant undefined parameter you will grab out of the air to stay with Alice in Wonderland?
So you say that the boundary conditions keeping an electron within an s-orbital around a nucleus are transient? Maybe over a period of billions of years. But stating that it happens at a fast rate is utter BS. Please become real!
TwistedRat
2.3 / 5 (3) May 13, 2010
Largest problem today is that physics science to narrow minded and to boxed in by the laws of physics as we define them today. Many of the laws of physics we work after today will be revised in the future, this has happened throughout history and most certainly will again many times. All too many physics scientists are like religious fundamentalist when it come to the current laws of physics, trying to prove them wrong is like talking to a wall... "Intelligent fundamentalist" might have to be a new term for many mainstream scientists. Scientists in mainstream science should have more open minds to fringe science and it's role to push science forward in to regions where classic science can't go. Fringe science is where the most revolutionary new discoveries will happen, classic science laws of physics is just no narrow minded. Problem is funding that is delivered today, all too little funding is given to research that is not mainstream physics science outside the military.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 13, 2010
Derive this from the Schroedinger equation please? You know this is BS since the Schroedinger equation gives you time-independent solutions with non-changing intensities within three dimensional space. This is simple first year physics my man!!

And this is the fundamental failure preventing the uniting of quantum physics with macrophysics. Let's take this discussion to PMs as this article is about to close.

And as you posit above, it may take billions of years to change, however, it doesn't change at fixed intervals within that billion years. The boundary condition change may be slight, but it exists. Equation derivation should appear in your mailbox shortly. If only this damn site could handle simple arithmetic signs.

Just recognized the dates, between posts. Sorry for taking so long.
marjon
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2010
Largest problem today is that physics science to narrow minded and to boxed in by the laws of physics as we define them today.

I agree and so did Max Planck based on a few of his comments.
"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. "
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' "

BTW, military research has funded cold fusion research. The military will fund research that pushes the fringe and changes paradigms for military advantage to defend the USA.

More news stories

NASA's space station Robonaut finally getting legs

Robonaut, the first out-of-this-world humanoid, is finally getting its space legs. For three years, Robonaut has had to manage from the waist up. This new pair of legs means the experimental robot—now stuck ...

Ex-Apple chief plans mobile phone for India

Former Apple chief executive John Sculley, whose marketing skills helped bring the personal computer to desktops worldwide, says he plans to launch a mobile phone in India to exploit its still largely untapped ...

Filipino tests negative for Middle East virus

A Filipino nurse who tested positive for the Middle East virus has been found free of infection in a subsequent examination after he returned home, Philippine health officials said Saturday.

Egypt archaeologists find ancient writer's tomb

Egypt's minister of antiquities says a team of Spanish archaeologists has discovered two tombs in the southern part of the country, one of them belonging to a writer and containing a trove of artifacts including reed pens ...