32 replies to this topic

[biknut]

Scientists in possible cold fusion breakthrough

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.

"Our finding is very significant," said analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss of the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, California.

"To our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from a LENR device," added the study's co-author in a statement.

The study's results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Chemical Society in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The city is also the site of an infamous presentation on cold fusion 20 years ago by Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons that sent shockwaves across the world.

Despite their claim to cold fusion discovery, the Fleishmann-Pons study soon fell into discredit after other researchers were unable to reproduce the results.

Scientists have been working for years to produce cold fusion reactions, a potentially cheap, limitless and environmentally-clean source of energy.

Paul Padley, a physicist at Rice University who reviewed Mosier-Boss's published work, said the study did not provide a plausible explanation of how cold fusion could take place in the conditions described.

"It fails to provide a theoretical rationale to explain how fusion could occur at room temperatures. And in its analysis, the research paper fails to exclude other sources for the production of neutrons," he told the Houston Chronicle.

"The whole point of fusion is, you?re bringing things of like charge together. As we all know, like things repel, and you have to overcome that repulsion somehow."

But Steven Krivit, editor of the New Energy Times, said the study was "big" and could open a new scientific field.

The neutrons produced in the experiments "may not be caused by fusion but perhaps some new, unknown nuclear process," added Krivit, who has monitored cold fusion studies for the past 20 years.

"We're talking about a new field of science that's a hybrid between chemistry and physics."

http://www.breitbart...;show_article=1

[biknut]

This would really throw cold water on the lefts carbon tax plan lol.

[Live Forever]

I think I'll wait and see. Big announcements like this have a way of not living up to the hype.

[DJS]

hehe... cold fusion? Excuse me for being skeptical. I agree with LF that I'll wait and see.

That said, it'd be a wonderful game changer if this report isn't just hype.

[Mind]

There is also the matter of scaling up/commercialization. If it doesn't scale and is not competitive (price) with fossil fuels then it is in the same boat as other alternative energy sources.

[modelcadet]

Not that this study isn't likely bull, at the very least these are egregious exaggerations are being made to secure grant funding.
This just reaffirms our need to overhaul the way we conduct science. I don't need another consumerist Harvard study telling me how aptly we've wasted research dollars.
We must go grassroots, crowd-source. We must address the systemic problems in our research processes, so that when the real breakthrough comes along, be it from a University or garage lab, we will develop it.
I'm concerned though, as I work on an AI-driven PTS, what the paramount issues are in an energy singularity. I suspect it's no free-lunch, but I haven't focused on it. Has anybody else?

[caston]

Do you mean if energy suddenly become hundred's of times cheaper than it is today and what effect that would have on the sprawl of humans across our planet?

[eternaltraveler]

I have much higher hopes for bussard's "hot" fusor

[modelcadet]

Do you mean if energy suddenly become hundred's of times cheaper than it is today and what effect that would have on the sprawl of humans across our planet?

Yes, exactly. I increasingly suspect that we won't see any PTS without an established Friendly framework, be it by artificial intelligence or zero-point energy or nanotechnology or artificial life or Barack Obama mojo.

[Imminst = pro murder (omega)]

Hey, thanks for posting this. I saw a mention of it but without a link to an article.

For more on the suppression see the movie "Heavy Watergate," linked to elsewhere on this forum or you can look it up on Google videos.

You can see some of the many results of research into the subject at
http://www.lenr-canr.org/
and here: http://www.newenergytimes.com/
or here: http://netdrive.mont.../~kowalskil/cf/

You can see a chronology of events listed at this web site: http://netdrive.mont.../~kowalskil/cf/ Replace the year at the end of the URL up to 2008 for other entries.

A bibliography is maintained here: http://www.chem.au.d...fusion/Pub_1989 Replace the year at the end up to 2008 for more entries.

Comes a point when people don't just dismiss things off-hand because they trust the oligarchy owned media.

[valkyrie_ice]

I have much higher hopes for bussard's "hot" fusor

I sincerely hope you are not referring to the tokamak, which hasn't had a single positive output in 20 some odd years and is currently projected to maybe be operational by 2045?

I've been looking into cold fusion again recently. It's not a joke or a scam, it's just not reproducible on demand. As for evidence of fusion? Neutrinos are just one result. Spontaneous creation of iron and gold have also been observed in tiny amounts that could not be considered "contamination" and improved understanding of the process is enabling fine tuning to be done. If the researchers had even a tenth of the funding the tokamak has had over the last quarter century, we might very well have had cheap clean energy.

However, ridiculing the existing evidence, rather than seeking to understand what is at work is just plain bad science. If the evidence contradicts the theory, isn't the theory supposed to be re-examined? Since when has the theory become more important than the truth?

[Imminst = pro murder (omega)]

Not a tokamak, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

Saw a piece on PBS news hour the other night on the NIF at Livermore. Talk about a pork project... I remember a time when PBS didn't accept corporate sponsors. Now it is as corrupt as any other commercial station.

[biknut]

What I find interesting is a breakthrough like this is a world changing event, and yet no reporters are rushing to interview the scientists in this research. But I did find out that octo mom was a striper when she was a teenager.

I want a cold fusion reactor in my closet next to my hot water heater that powers my whole house for years.

[eternaltraveler]

Not a tokamak, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

though that article does mention bussard it is primarily about farnsworth fusors which are hopeless for power generation.

this is the more direct entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

Bussard's device appears to be scalable, with power output increasing as a function of the 5th power of the diameter.

The problem with fusion is that we can't just recreate what goes on in the sun. Fusion in the sun is an incredibly unlikely event. That's why it takes 7 billion years for your average hydrogen atom to fuse. The human body puts out more energy than the same given volume in the center of the sun. We need to do fusion orders of magnitude better than the sun does it for it to work for us.

[valkyrie_ice]

Not a tokamak, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

though that article does mention bussard it is primarily about farnsworth fusors which are hopeless for power generation.

this is the more direct entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell

Bussard's device appears to be scalable, with power output increasing as a function of the 5th power of the diameter.

The problem with fusion is that we can't just recreate what goes on in the sun. Fusion in the sun is an incredibly unlikely event. That's why it takes 7 billion years for your average hydrogen atom to fuse. The human body puts out more energy than the same given volume in the center of the sun. We need to do fusion orders of magnitude better than the sun does it for it to work for us.

hurm... looks a little more promising than the tokamak, but still using similar methods. I'm unconvinced that confined fusion will ever be made to work in time to actually be useful, whereas the studies I have done into LENR seem far more promising per investment dollar. As I see it, it is the difference in finding the right filament for the lightbulb, verses figuring out how to produce light from empty space. One is a matter of trial and error fine tuning an existing phenomena to make it continuous and useable, the other is trying to find a way to reproduce the processes inside the sun that we are not even 100% certain of. One involves cheap, easily obtainable materials, the other requires billions spent making one unworking prototype after another, with billions more needed to keep making them for a few more decades.

And the only REAL difference between how much effort is put into them is due to scorn and derision on the part of hot fusion researchers. LENR seems to be a valid sub field of fusion, yet it is dismissed because Physicists don't want CHEMISTS to be right where they are wrong.

And thats not science, that's just plain hubris.

[eternaltraveler]

hurm... looks a little more promising than the tokamak, but still using similar methods

depends how broadly one defines the term "similar" I suppose.

whereas the studies I have done into LENR seem far more promising per investment dollar

Since you've done studies on LENR could you share the data with us that shows it to be promising?

it is the difference in finding the right filament for the lightbulb, verses figuring out how to produce light from empty space.

could you please explain this analogy to me.

reproduce the processes inside the sun that we are not even 100% certain of

as I mentioned in my last post, reproducing the processes in the sun is not sufficient. Even tokamaks (which I agree are junk, though if you make one big enough it will still work fine as a net power generator) do a better job of fusing per unit volume and mass than the sun does.

yet it is dismissed because Physicists don't want CHEMISTS to be right where they are wrong.

it has been dismissed because the data on LENR has been very poor, as you said yourself

it's just not reproducible on demand

and to overcome the inertia in any field you need good data.

In my opinion there are many challenges not yet overcome with the development of cheap fusion power. But that's ok. We have all the technology we need for cheap fission power. There is enough uranium in the earth to power the entire energy consumption of the human civilization for 2 billion years. We can work out fusion sometime in that time-frame I think.

[caston]

Not to mention the naturally occurring fusion reactor at the core of our own planet, and the great big one that it revolves around.

[Imminst = pro murder (omega)]

Right on caston. I have run into professional physicists who think we can't use fusion energy now. Sheesh, that big one with the 93 million mile space containment vessel is just too obvious, I guess. Are there fusion reactions taking place at the core of our planet? I don't recall ever hearing of that.

Wow, I am continually amazed how if one has an official position with this forum it seems to be associated with being clueless. Mind, price $ wise means it fits in with a zero-sum game. Solutions that will avail success for all are not economically viable in that sense. And eternalunraveler, sheesh, you say tokamaks are a joke and then say they only need to be big enough? As far as the data not being good enough for cold fusion, apparently misinformation is good enough to put it down.

Edited by Brainbox, 30 March 2009 - 09:00 PM.
Removed ad hominem remark

[eternaltraveler]

eternalunraveler, sheesh, you say tokamaks are a joke and then say they only need to be big enough? As far as the data not being good enough for cold fusion, apparently misinformation is good enough to put it down.

Tokamaks are a toroid design. With a basic understanding of geometry one would understand that the surface area of a toroid (or any other shape with an circular cross section) is given by 4pi^2Rr (with R being the radius of the entire torus, and r being the radius of the torus tube) while the volume on the other hand is given by 2pi^2Rr^2. Put more simply the surface area is a direct function of the radius of the tube while the volume is a function of the radius of the tube squared. That means a larger reactor with the same number of fusion reactions per unit volume would have less surface area for the resultant energy to escape which is what prevents a self sustaining reaction (this incidentally is also the same reason there is such a thing as "critical mass" in fission reactions).

So yes. At enormous and unjustifiable expense in my opinion a large enough tokamak would work as a net power generator.

I recommend having a basic understanding of what you are talking about before making snide remarks in the future.

[Imminst = pro murder (omega)]

eternalunraveler, sheesh, you say tokamaks are a joke and then say they only need to be big enough? As far as the data not being good enough for cold fusion, apparently misinformation is good enough to put it down.

bunch of pompous rhetoric...

So yes. At enormous and unjustifiable expense in my opinion a large enough tokamak would work as a net power generator.

I recommend having a basic understanding of what you are talking about before making snide remarks in the future.

I'll believe it when I see it. Those are snide remarks to say the data on cold fusion is poor or bad without doing your homework. The article pointed to by this thread also contains bad information, that others were not able to repeat the findings of Fleischman and Ponns while not mentioning that many did. You serve the powers that be that would hold us all to a depraved existence defending proclamations on the basis of their relative hierarchic social standing without question. You would like me to do the same for you, with your lofty position as a navigator here, apparently.

Since you've done studies on LENR could you share the data with us that shows it to be promising?

FYI, that is what the original posting to this thread is highlighting. You can go find some of the other data that has been developed in 1989 to the present easily yourself too but seems you would prefer to toss off the snide remarks belittling it without doing your research. Double standards appear to be the rule for those who blithely accept rankism as sacrosanct.

[eternaltraveler]

uh huh. Who's spouting rhetoric again?

You can go find some of the other data that has been developed in 1989 to the present easily yourself

I could certainly do that, and though easy, a review of all relevant research would be very time consuming. Time is a great limiting factor. Since you seem to have a strong interest in this field why not simply present your data here about how LENRs both work, and how they could function as a means of large scale power generation and not simply as a scientific curiosity?

You serve the powers that be that would hold us all to a depraved existence defending proclamations on the basis of their relative hierarchic social standing without question.

with your lofty position as a navigator here

for those who blithely accept rankism as sacrosanct

Wow, I am continually amazed how if one has an official position with this forum it seems to be associated with being clueless.

and please leave your critiques of social constructs, conspiracy theories and disdain for what you perceive as authority for another thread. This is a good one which you've apparently found already.

though I will give one small comment to this

You would like me to do the same for you, with your lofty position as a navigator here, apparently.

No, I would like you to acknowledge that a torus with a smaller tube diameter has a greater surface area to volume ratio. More importantly I would like readers of this thread to realize this instead of being misinformed by disinformation and then going on to fail their high school geometry classes.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 26 March 2009 - 02:48 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

did I mention that I still think the tokamak is a bad design?

[Imminst = pro murder (omega)]

Who's spouting rhetoric again?

You.

You can go find some of the other data that has been developed in 1989 to the present easily yourself

I could certainly do that, and though easy, a review of all relevant research would be very time consuming. Time is a great limiting factor. Since you seem to have a strong interest in this field why not simply present your data here about how LENRs both work, and how they could function as a means of large scale power generation and not simply as a scientific curiosity?

I don't think anyone knows "how" but that is no reason to discount evidence. You found the time to give me some basic geometry of toroids, something I found to be your proclaiming a haughty superiority rather than offering anything of any merit to this discussion.

You serve the powers that be that would hold us all to a depraved existence defending proclamations on the basis of their relative hierarchic social standing without question...
...with your lofty position as a navigator here...
...for those who blithely accept rankism as sacrosanct...
Wow, I am continually amazed how if one has an official position with this forum it seems to be associated with being clueless...

and please leave your critiques of social constructs, conspiracy theories and disdain for what you perceive as authority for another thread.

But that is what keeps this tech. from being developed. Don't want to look at the big picture? Want to belabor details any one can go look up and spout as their claim to righteousness rather than look at the data that is pertinent to this subject? Double standard, eternalobfuscator.

though I will give one small comment to this

You would like me to do the same for you, with your lofty position as a navigator here, apparently.

No, I would like you to acknowledge that a torus with a smaller tube diameter has a greater surface area to volume ratio. More importantly I would like readers of this thread to realize this instead of being misinformed by disinformation and then going on to fail their high school geometry classes.

Acknowledged but totally inappropriate for this thread and misinforming as I never denied this nor any one else, but there wont be any clamping down on your derailing due to your special privileges, the crassness has to be defended for the sake of the hierarchy, the dumbing down preserved for the sake of the clueless justifying remaining in control, for the sake of preserving not having useful discourse or intelligence so the pontificating can be preserved.

As far as conspiracy theory goes, are you really that clueless? It is the rule, not the exception. Evidence is presented to our senses every day from every media outlet. You want to try to discount that then why not start another thread rather than derail this one with this appeal to ad hominem derision. You are exhibiting just exactly what has kept the funding away from cold fusion, what has led to constant derision of the researchers who reported significant supporting evidence starting in 1989 and continuing over and over again to this day.

[Imminst = pro murder (omega)]

March 23, 2009 American Chemical Society press release

Part 1 http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1289320 45:22

Part 2 http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1289427 13:11

[eternaltraveler]

You found the time

Yes, a few seconds of my time, vs the many days it would take me to get up to date on LENR research.

I work 80+ hours a week. Can you please share with us the distilled version of the research you are so sure of on LENR?

to give me some basic geometry of toroids, something I found to be your proclaiming a haughty superiority rather than offering anything of any merit to this discussion.

that's because you said this

And eternalunraveler, sheesh, you say tokamaks are a joke and then say they only need to be big enough?

And I showed how basic geometry gives us the answer to why one needs to be big enough to be effective. You took it as a chance to go on a tirade against leadership and me instead even when I agreed with the premise that tokamaks are not a good design (so why are we even discussing this).

ad hominem derision

where did I use an ad hominem? I pointed out that you made a snide remark when you made a snide remark and I pointed out that you are the person formerly known as Chip when you are the person formerly known as Chip.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 31 March 2009 - 03:36 AM.

[biknut]

March 23, 2009 American Chemical Society press release

Part 1 http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1289320 45:22

Part 2 http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1289427 13:11

Fascinating, maybe if people weren't so arrogant this research would be much farther along.

[eternaltraveler]

March 23, 2009 American Chemical Society press release

Part 1 http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1289320 45:22

Part 2 http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1289427 13:11

there's a start

[Imminst = pro murder (omega)]

On April 19, 2009 CBS had a 12 minute section on "60 Minutes" re. cold fusion.

Comment from the youtube poster: "1st half of the 12 minute treatment of cold fusion on 60 minutes aired on April the 19th 2009. Removed by CBS from their own website after about 24 hours, and seems to be difficult to access anywhere."

Part 1:

Part 2:

[tunt01]

I also saw the 60 minutes piece when it aired a few weeks ago. It was very intriguing. It seems 60 minutes made a minor journalistic error and has taken the piece down, possibly as a response.




-------------------


In an April 19 episode, “60 Minutes” interviewed scientists who said they have replicated the initial findings dozens of times. The news program even reported that the Pentagon was putting money into cold fusion research.

To get an independent perspective on the subject, “60 Minutes” reporter Scott Pelly interviewed Robert Duncan, vice chancellor for research at MU, and introduced him by saying: “We asked the American Physical Society, the top physics organization in America, to recommend an independent scientist. They gave us Rob Duncan.”

In the segment, Duncan is shown traveling to Israel to observe a cold fusion experiment in a laboratory.

Duncan scrutinized the methodology and later crunched the numbers. He came away impressed.

“I found that the excess heat is quite real,” Duncan said on the program.

“Are you surprised to hear yourself saying that?” Pelly asked.

“Very much. I never thought I’d say that,” Duncan replied.

After the segment was broadcast, the American Physical Society issued a strongly worded statement saying they never referred Duncan to “60 Minutes.”

“That statement is false,” the APS asserted, referring to how “60 Minutes” said it had found Duncan.

“None of the American Physical Society’s (APS) authorized spokespersons, including the president, president-elect, executive officer, director of public affairs, head of media relations and press secretary, provided CBS with the names of any experts.”

Duncan said he was referred to CBS by Allen Goldman of the University of Minnesota, a longtime friend who also is chairman of the Division of Condensed Matter Physics within APS.

Goldman said his reference to Duncan was made only while he spoke as an individual and not in any official capacity.

The controversy prompted “60 Minutes” to delete the original introduction of Duncan from video posted online. Duncan said he was surprised and saddened by the controversy. He jokingly labeled it “heavy water gate.”

[Imminst = pro murder (omega)]

The following video used to be on the Univ. or Missouri's web site but was recently removed with no explanation.