Jump to content

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions / Cold Fusion (thread split)


barfbag
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

I put data to my own fusion energy calculator app, and it showed such reaction (Ni-62 and p+) is plausible...

post-100882-0-34176200-1462874212.png

I added two the most common fusion reactions known (pp and pD), to show it works as expected.

It uses the same database of 3142 isotopes as decay energy calculator.

 

Officer the most complained that Nickel-62 is the most stable isotope known in the universe.

But it would be important while discussion about ability to split it, not while fusing with something else.

post-100882-0-04112400-1462874419_thumb.png

Page later, he also complained that such reaction would be not exothermic: while my app showed positive value of around 6.12 MeV. (negative results are skipped)

 

In 17 point, he made obvious mistake: Cu-63 and Cu-65 are stable isotopes of Copper, so they would not decay to Nickel, as he wrote.

post-100882-0-34176200-1462874212_thumb.png

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Sensei truly you are!

 

So, would you be interested to spend some time to examine and shortly comment these experiments:

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/206-tgoc

 

... and, perhaps, look at those videos and tell us your opinion about their validity?


And here are some more old news about presentations of CF/LENR related experiments:

http://coldfusion3.com/blog/major-lenr-demonstrations-held

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody revealing everything on YouTube video with details, should not be afraid of quantum physicians come to his place and check everything..

All these guys should get mass spectrometers, used one are on eBay, and check material prior running device, and after running device, to see whether there are differences in element/isotope composition.


ps. Actually I showed these calcs in OpenOffice in post #24 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83658-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-thread-split/?p=810423

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No nothing here is conclusive enough to be considered as conclusive. All the articles mention is the possible viability and details some of the research. Conclusive proof would hit the news in this subject.

 

But, after more over 20 years of overwhelming experimental confirmations, there are scientifically valid conclusive proofs that breaks stigmatic barrier of "pathological/junk science" which surrounds that field from the very beginning.

http://phys.org/news/2010-03-cold-fusion-closer-mainstream.html

 

- conclusions from the one of presentations on CF colloquium on CERN, 22.Mar. 2012.:

Need for an International Research Program

• Apart from the Rossi and/or Defkalion claims (in principle very interesting but never, up to now, independently reconfirmed by third parts), the quality of experiments worldwide performed is so high and the results obtained so widespread/reproduced, that I (Francesco Celani) believe it is the time to start an International Research Program to boost the results.

• This Program, well funded and based on multidisciplinary approach, shall have the objective to design and test “working devices” able to generate heat and, later on, electricity.

• Clearly, this Program shall not stop the research on the theory side, aimed to define a general theoretical architecture of the whole phenomena we are discussing today.

• If successful, this Program should also launch an economic and industrial roadmap to define the guidelines of future investment and regulations.

http://indico.cern.ch/event/177379/attachments/231603/324018/CERN220212_2203.pdf

 

Influential state-owned organisations just can't ignore facts anymore, and should support further researches (as supports hot fusion), instead of leaving matter of that importance to growing mass of suspicious entrepreneurs and diletants.

 

 

Somebody revealing everything on YouTube video with details, should not be afraid of quantum physicians come to his place and check everything..

All these guys should get mass spectrometers, used one are on eBay, and check material prior running device, and after running device, to see whether there are differences in element/isotope composition.

ps. Actually I showed these calcs in OpenOffice in post #24 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83658-low-energy-nuclear-reactions-cold-fusion-thread-split/?p=810423

 

Thank's on so fast review. Does that meant there is a significant uncertainty in functionality of both devices?

 

 

"ps. Actually I showed these calcs in OpenOffice in post #24 http://www.sciencefo...split/?p=810423"

 

- So, Rossi's device actually may be real, but without hes understanding of basic principles?

Edited by haram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and, perhaps, look at those videos and tell us your opinion about their validity?

Watched the whole 1st video 37min now.

Hilarious end. Everybody WATCH THIS:

https://youtu.be/3wENFciq1-Q?t=34m30s

They should not even start experiment without making sure that their devices are working correctly.

 

They used Tungsten as electrode.

But Tungsten has plentiful of oxides, and even can form compounds with sodium (they used Sodium Hydroxide >10% by mass).

See the list:

post-100882-0-78208300-1462897571_thumb.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_tungsten_bronze

NaxWO3

Quote "Wöhler's 1823 synthesis involved reducing sodium tungstate and tungsten trioxide with hydrogen gas at red heat. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_tungstate

Na2WO4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten_oxide

 

Are they blind to see this yellow color in water and floating contamination at the bottom flask after 30 minutes of experiment.. ?

(also maybe reaction with Iron from container?)

 

Also instead of averaging amperage (it's fluctuating! in the whole 30 mins experiment), they should plug cables from transformer to normal watt meter. Like this one.

post-100882-0-91486600-1462898221.jpg

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But, after more over 20 years of overwhelming experimental confirmations

There hasn't been 20 years of overwhelming proof... there has been 20 years of crackpot/con artist trying to suggest overwhelming proof.

 

Overwhelming proof would have strong support by the scientific community by being readily replicated beyond reasonable doubt.

 

That type of proof would earn a Nobel prize. The most common argument against this is typically conspiracy theory related...

Here is a related review

 

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiF9PDXotDMAhVC-mMKHQhEC6oQFggRMAA&sig2=w0HGg-YO8dihuCaUTObOow&usg=AFQjCNHohRR7dvRULT2pXO69WsIUJaXT3Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There hasn't been 20 years of overwhelming proof... there has been 20 years of crackpot/con artist trying to suggest overwhelming proof.

 

So you call, for instance, Dr. Pamela Mosier-Boss, an analytical chemist at the U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems, employed at the Navy lab for 28 years, holder of degrees in biology and chemistry from Kent State University and a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry from Michigan State University in 1985., person which is, in addition to more than 30 peer-reviewed papers related to LENR, also widely published in other fields with an additional 30+ peer-reviewed papers, and if you count peer-reviewed papers, conference proceedings and book chapters, -it’s over 160 in total, and which holds more patents than any other woman in the history of the lab (at 16 with 5 more pending), and her co-workers on study -that report was presented at the American Chemical Society's 237th National Meeting, among 30 papers on the topic that was presented during a four-day symposium, "New Energy Technology," March 22-25 2009., in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion - "a crackpot/con artist trying to suggest overwhelming proof."??
That's funny.
Overwhelming proof would have strong support by the scientific community by being readily replicated beyond reasonable doubt.

 

 

"They cited other evidence for nuclear reactions including X-rays, tritium (another form of hydrogen), and excess heat. Meanwhile, Mosier-Boss and colleagues are continuing to explore the phenomenon to get a better understanding of exactly how LENR works, which is key to being able to control it for practical purposes.
Mosier-Boss points out that the field currently gets very little funding and, despite its promise, researchers can't predict when, or if, LENR may emerge from the lab with practical applications. The U.S. Department of the Navy and JWK International Corporation in Annandale, Va., funded the study.
Source: American Chemical Society"

http://phys.org/news/2009-03-cold-fusion-rebirth-evidence-controversial.html

That type of proof would earn a Nobel prize. The most common argument against this is typically conspiracy theory related...

Here is a related review

 

http://www.google.ca...pXO69WsIUJaXT3Q

 

 

- So that is 2004 U.S. Department of Energy Cold Fusion Review & Reviewer Comments.

 

- That is another review, published in Current Science in February 2015.:

"Review of materials science for studying the Fleischmann and Pons effect"

V. Violante 1, E. Castagna 1, S. Lecci 1, F. Sarto 1, M. Sansovini 1, A. Torre 1, A. La Gatta 2, R. Duncan 3, G. Hubler 4, A. El Boher 4, O. Aziz 4, D. Pease 4, D. Knies 5, M. McKubre 6
Affiliations
1 ENEA Research Center, via E. Fermi 45, 00044 Frascati (Rome), Italy
2 Consorzio Veneto Ricerca-TSEM, Padova, Italy
3 Texas Tech University, Lubbok, TX, United States
4 University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, United States
5 Coolescence LLC, Boulder, CO, United States
6 SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, United States
And as for conspiracy theories, one picture is worth of thousands words:
Edited by haram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If cold fusion was a feasible reality it would have been marketed and announced world wide. Plain and simple. You have no idea how many times I've heard these arguments on forums over the past 15 years or so.

I've heard nearly every argument on cold fusion, and every argument ends up in pointless bicker and endless skew of links both for and against...

 

If cold fusion is found to be a conclusive reality then you would literally hear it on the News.

 

Plain and simple.

 

If I recall correctly Mossier Boss work was countered by Prof. Paul Padleys. It's been a while but if I recall the problem Padley showed that Boss couldn't provide any believable theoretical explanation of how a fusion process could occur in condensed matter systems under such experimental conditions.

 

However that's off memory as I lost interest in the cold fusion debate years ago.

 

 

Just a sidenote.. years ago I ran into a professor who claimed to have built a salt water carburetor.

 

He even showed me his patent and manuscript.

 

That was back in 1990, to this day we still use gas primarily.

 

If you wish to believe in cold fusion feel free. My only objection is stating there is conclusive proof or evidence. Which is false.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So you call, for instance, Dr. Pamela Mosier-Boss, an analytical chemist at the U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems, employed at the Navy lab for 28 years, holder of degrees in biology and chemistry from Kent State University and a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry from Michigan State University in 1985., person which is, in addition to more than 30 peer-reviewed papers related to LENR, also widely published in other fields with an additional 30+ peer-reviewed papers, and if you count peer-reviewed papers, conference proceedings and book chapters, -it’s over 160 in total, and which holds more patents than any other woman in the history of the lab (at 16 with 5 more pending), and her co-workers on study -that report was presented at the American Chemical Society's 237th National Meeting, among 30 papers on the topic that was presented during a four-day symposium, "New Energy Technology," March 22-25 2009., in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion - "a crackpot/con artist trying to suggest overwhelming proof."??

Well, I might not call her a crackpot- but I'd call her an analytical chemist (like me).

And, as such she is unqualified to speak with authority on nuclear physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So you call, for instance, Dr. Pamela Mosier-Boss, an analytical chemist at the U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems, employed at the Navy lab for 28 years, holder of degrees in biology and chemistry from Kent State University and a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry from Michigan State University in 1985., person which is, in addition to more than 30 peer-reviewed papers related to LENR, also widely published in other fields with an additional 30+ peer-reviewed papers, and if you count peer-reviewed papers, conference proceedings and book chapters, -it’s over 160 in total, and which holds more patents than any other woman in the history of the lab (at 16 with 5 more pending), and her co-workers on study -that report was presented at the American Chemical Society's 237th National Meeting, among 30 papers on the topic that was presented during a four-day symposium, "New Energy Technology," March 22-25 2009., in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion - "a crackpot/con artist trying to suggest overwhelming proof."??

 

Fail.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I see that "blacklight power" has changed it's name, but seems still not done much but spend other people's money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Light_Power#Criticism

 

"In 2008, Robert L. Park wrote that BLP has benefited from wealthy investors who allocate a proportion of their funds to risky ventures with a potentially huge upside, but that in the case of BLP since the science underlying the offering was "just wrong" the investment risk was, in Park's view, "infinite".[20]"

 

Well put.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

If cold fusion was a feasible reality it would have been marketed and announced world wide. Plain and simple. You have no idea how many times I've heard these arguments on forums over the past 15 years or so.

I've heard nearly every argument on cold fusion, and every argument ends up in pointless bicker and endless skew of links both for and against...

 

If cold fusion is found to be a conclusive reality then you would literally hear it on the News.

 

Plain and simple.

 

You meant -marketed, like hot fusion is? Or hot fusion isn't feasible reality also -because it isn't yet marketed? How something could become marketed before it is examined and developed? How did fission was marketed? Would be fission power plants marketed at all besides fossil fuels industry, if research weren't strongly boosted by military at the WW2 and beginning of arms race?

 

That's a completely false logic.

 

As a matter of the fact, it was on the news:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTvaX3vRtRA

http://phys.org/news/2010-03-cold-fusion-closer-mainstream.html

 

and mr.Gates have some plans for marketing:

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Albrecht/2014-12-23-Bill-Gates-Sponsoring-Palladium-Based-LENR-Technology.html

 

 

If I recall correctly Mossier Boss work was countered by Prof. Paul Padleys. It's been a while but if I recall the problem Padley showed that Boss couldn't provide any believable theoretical explanation of how a fusion process could occur in condensed matter systems under such experimental conditions.

 

 

Maybe somebody else will (or allready did) provide theorethical explanation, after all she is not a physicist, she was just conducted an experiment based on previous CF research… what about Julian Schwinger's explanations? Peter Hagelstein's, Mitchell Swartz's? And, since when results of experiments requires theorethical confirmations at a first place, shouldn't be vice-versa?

 

Just a sidenote.. years ago I ran into a professor who claimed to have built a salt water carburetor.

He even showed me his patent and manuscript.

 

That was back in 1990, to this day we still use gas primarily.

 

 

Well, i have one cute anegdote too: do you know how oil business started?

William „Doc“ Rockefeller Sr. was seller of „snake oil universal elixir“ –essentially it was crude oil.

 

If you wish to believe in cold fusion feel free. My only objection is stating there is conclusive proof or evidence. Which is false.

 

 

I'm not believe in CF at all. I'm believe that in link below are serious scientific works made by serious scientists:

http://world.std.com/~mica/nanorrefs.html

and only other works of other scientists could discard it.

 

 

Well, I might not call her a crackpot- but I'd call her an analytical chemist (like me).

And, as such she is unqualified to speak with authority on nuclear physics.

 

So, is Dr. Pamela Mosier-Boss (and her staff) unqualified to detect neutrons, X-rays, tritium, and excess heat, in their SPAWAR laboratory?

 

Are nuclear physicists qualified to conduct some CF experiments?

http://world.std.com/~mica/nanortechnology.htm

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IEEE-brief-DeChiaro-9-2015-pdf/

 

 

 

 

 

At least somebody here admits that official research team from one of top-ranking government scientific institutions in charge for military tech development of world's most advanced superpower have some authority to measure input and output energy from some laboratory device.

 

But no, you miss whole picture too; i'm referenced not on their authority, but on their conducted experiment.

 

 

 

 

*****

NASA about LENR:

 

LENR is a type of nuclear energy based on the weak force. It has similar characteristics to fission and fusion, except there is no harmful radiation or hazardous waste. As an energy source, LENR works by generating heat in a catalyst process. The fuels or materials that are usually used in the LENR process are nickel metal (Ni) with hydrogen gas (H) or palladium (Pd) with deuterium (D). The initial testing and theory show that radiation and radioisotopes are extremely short lived and can be easily shielded.

LENR would be an ideal energetics solution. It could meet the world’s energy requirements while being cleaner and safer than current methods. NASA’s interest in LENR increased after the Widom-Larsen Theory was published. NASA began conducting experiments to determine how the LENR surface reactions occur and their characteristics. One appealing application for LENR previously identified by NASA is single-stage-to-orbit vehicles. LENR’s high energy density would be a huge advantage for these types of vehicles. NASA conducted a study in 2009 to design a LENR powered launch vehicle. LENR enabled very high performance engines that could revolutionize access to space.

 

https://nari.arc.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/Wells_TM2014-218283%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reaction%20Aircraft.pdf

 

 

*****

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

R E P O R T OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON

H.R. 4909

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

MAY 4, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

(... page 87 ...)

...

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Briefing

The committee is aware of recent positive developments in developing low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), which produce ultraclean, low-cost renewable energy that have strong national security implications. For example, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), if LENR works it will be a ‘‘disruptive technology that could revolutionize energy production and storage.’’ The committee is also aware of the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency’s (DARPA) findings that other countries including China and India are moving forward with LENR programs of their own and that Japan has actually created its own investment fund to promote such technology. DIA has also assessed that Japan and Italy are leaders in the field and that Russia, China, Israel, and India are now devoting significant resources to LENR development.

To better understand the national security implications of these developments, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing on the military utility of recent U.S. industrial base LENR advancements to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 22, 2016. This briefing should examine the current state of research in the United States, how that compares to work being done internationally, and an assessment of the type of military applications where this technology could potentially be useful.

...

 

https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt537/CRPT-114hrpt537.pdf

- sounds pretty much like official confirmation to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*****

Interesting interview with Bo Höistad, Professor at Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics, Uppsala University, Sweden

http://katalog.uu.se/profile/?id=XX1060

 

 

transcript:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/13/transcript-of-radio-interview-with-bo-hoistad-on-the-lugano-e-cat-test-we-want-lenr-fusione-fredda/

 

 

 

This auto-arranging of posts is incredibly annoying. :D

Edited by haram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.