Cold Fusion Proven True by U.S. Navy Researchers - Will Suppression of this Science be Repeated?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor - Key concepts: Cold fusion, NaturalNews and Coal
(NaturalNews) The world owes Fleischmann and Pons a huge apology: The cold fusion technology they announced in 1989 -- which was blasted by arrogant hot fusion scientists as a fraud -- has been proven true once again by U.S. Navy Researchers. In papers presented at this year's American Chemical Society meeting, scientist Pamela Mosier-Boss presented data supporting the reality of cold fusion, declaring the report, "the first scientific report of highly energetic neutrons from low-energy nuclear reactions."
Cold Fusion Proven True by U.S. Navy Researchers
Cold Fusion Proven True by U.S. Navy Researchers
http://www.abundanthope.net/pages/True_ ... 2851.shtml
This claim is based on the particle tracks in the CR-39 material. However, these tracks can result from a chemical cause as well.
See:
http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html
and note the conclusion.
I still think "cold fusion" is an open mystery.
See:
http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html
and note the conclusion.
I still think "cold fusion" is an open mystery.
There clearly seems to be some sort of nuclear process going on. The question is what sort? From what I've read the controls to limit external electrolyte contamination have been heroic and yet nuclear ashes and fusion byproducts (helium, etc.) keep showing up in far above background quantities.kurt9 wrote:This claim is based on the particle tracks in the CR-39 material. However, these tracks can result from a chemical cause as well.
See:
http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html
and note the conclusion.
I still think "cold fusion" is an open mystery.
At least one intuitively attractive left-field GUT candidate has a take on cold fusion reactors:
http://physicsandbeyond.com/DynamicTheory.html
http://physicsandbeyond.com/CompactReactor.html
Vae Victis
Ha! As soon as they say "nuclear", they're no longer talking magnitude, they're talking source. All these people should be saying "energetic" or "of nuclear magnitude", and not saying they're nuclear processes, something they've got absolutely *no* basis for saying. It's very irksome to me that they claim "nuclear" processes instead of energetic processes, of unknown sources.djolds1 wrote:There clearly seems to be some sort of nuclear process going on. The question is what sort? From what I've read the controls to limit external electrolyte contamination have been heroic and yet nuclear ashes and fusion byproducts (helium, etc.) keep showing up in far above background quantities.kurt9 wrote:This claim is based on the particle tracks in the CR-39 material. However, these tracks can result from a chemical cause as well.
See:
http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html
and note the conclusion.
I still think "cold fusion" is an open mystery.
At least one intuitively attractive left-field GUT candidate has a take on cold fusion reactors:
http://physicsandbeyond.com/DynamicTheory.html
http://physicsandbeyond.com/CompactReactor.html
Most of what I wrote is recollection from reading I did a few years ago when the initial SPAWAR results hit the wire. ISTR there were metamorphic byproducts; the electrode metals in some areas changed to different elements. To the best of my knowledge that can only be a nuclear process. The characterization of the process as nuclear is mine, IIRC.Helius wrote: Ha! As soon as they say "nuclear", they're no longer talking magnitude, they're talking source. All these people should be saying "energetic" or "of nuclear magnitude", and not saying they're nuclear processes, something they've got absolutely *no* basis for saying. It's very irksome to me that they claim "nuclear" processes instead of energetic processes, of unknown sources.
Vae Victis
Bosh. Cold fusion wasn't suppressed, it just couldn't be replicated. -1 to the headline writer.
I'm betting on transmutation. It's apparently known to occur in nickel and palladium, and might explain Blacklight's results as well.
viewtopic.php?t=1650&postdays=0&postord ... um&start=0
I'm betting on transmutation. It's apparently known to occur in nickel and palladium, and might explain Blacklight's results as well.
viewtopic.php?t=1650&postdays=0&postord ... um&start=0
Dr. Bussard had a paper on this shortly after the news hit. Askmar has it posted (and I notice he now has permission to post these papers from Dolly).
http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/ ... Fusion.pdf
Doc's idea was that the reaction was fusion and resulting transmutation with electrode metal, including palladium and nickel. He ran the numbers using conventionally understood physics, and predicted results that some LENR researchers have since seen. It is not straight DD fusion. Some people have gotten hydrogen to do it.
The cross section calculation cranks down to energies where about the only component left is Gamow barrier penetration (essentially a quantum mechanics pathway something like electron tunneling in a tunnel diode). The cross sections are calculated per the NRL Plasma Formulary reference. This turns out to be from a paper by Miley, et. al, and you will find the same source in virtually any fusion paper that calculates cross sections ... it is the standard.
Yep, our buddy George Miley. Then publisher of Fusion Technology. The only guy who would print CF papers. Took to doing the peer review on them himself, in person, including running some replicate tests.
The claims are extraordinary. The proof must be, too. But they do seem to be on to something.
The results I've seen say the reaction may make very good sock warmers.
http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/ ... Fusion.pdf
Doc's idea was that the reaction was fusion and resulting transmutation with electrode metal, including palladium and nickel. He ran the numbers using conventionally understood physics, and predicted results that some LENR researchers have since seen. It is not straight DD fusion. Some people have gotten hydrogen to do it.
The cross section calculation cranks down to energies where about the only component left is Gamow barrier penetration (essentially a quantum mechanics pathway something like electron tunneling in a tunnel diode). The cross sections are calculated per the NRL Plasma Formulary reference. This turns out to be from a paper by Miley, et. al, and you will find the same source in virtually any fusion paper that calculates cross sections ... it is the standard.
Yep, our buddy George Miley. Then publisher of Fusion Technology. The only guy who would print CF papers. Took to doing the peer review on them himself, in person, including running some replicate tests.
The claims are extraordinary. The proof must be, too. But they do seem to be on to something.
The results I've seen say the reaction may make very good sock warmers.
The physics and the experiments are all quite interesting and an interesting-enough of a read.
The issue is the claims, the nonsence diabolical claims that purveyors of CF make. The very notion that you can actually get some measurable heat out of an exposed nuclear reactor of any kind without actually killing yourself in the process demonstrates, to my thinking, such a basic lack of understanding that it automatically excludes anyone making such a claim from any semblance of credibility. It's like a person making an announcement that they are going to sail around the edge of the flat world and map out which continents are closest to falling off the earth - it's just not worth wasting time listening to what they are about to say on the subject when they start off like that.
The issue is the claims, the nonsence diabolical claims that purveyors of CF make. The very notion that you can actually get some measurable heat out of an exposed nuclear reactor of any kind without actually killing yourself in the process demonstrates, to my thinking, such a basic lack of understanding that it automatically excludes anyone making such a claim from any semblance of credibility. It's like a person making an announcement that they are going to sail around the edge of the flat world and map out which continents are closest to falling off the earth - it's just not worth wasting time listening to what they are about to say on the subject when they start off like that.
Chris, I'm personally not a CF enthusiast, but I really wish this topic were not so polarized. I'm not convinced you are working from facts here ... it sounds like it is a matter of faith for you.
Miley was one of the more respected people in fusion. After all, his fusion cross section data were at the foundation of the field. He was well enough respected to be chosen to run FT. But then he continued to look at the papers, conduct real peer review, and publish selected ones (always way in the back). Finally he wound up resigning. I'll see if I can find the letter he posted on-line explaining why. It is quite damning.
Among a segment of the fusion community, he is now on the outs. Why? He was willing to take a look at CF. What we have here is an automatic dismissal of a person's credentials because they are willing to consider a particular line of inquiry.
Which leads me to suspect you have not taken a recent serious look at this line of inquiry, because you reflexively believe it would mark you as a quack.
The people who have been working on this the last decade or so have been doing so very quietly, trying to figure out what is going on, and not making outrageous claims. They are, for the most part, exceptionally aware of the need to back up exceptional claims with hard data.
If they are, in fact, on to something interesting, but will automatically be labeled as kooks because they are looking at an unclean subject, I would propose that those doing the labeling are not, in fact, scientists.
I'm not planning on sinking any investment money into CF. I'm interested in what they have to say. I will note that Dr. Bussard was highly critical of the early CF work, and other than this one paper he distanced himself from it. However, he did confide in me that he believed there was some real physics underlying it, which, absent hype and exaggerated claims, warrented investigation.
Miley was one of the more respected people in fusion. After all, his fusion cross section data were at the foundation of the field. He was well enough respected to be chosen to run FT. But then he continued to look at the papers, conduct real peer review, and publish selected ones (always way in the back). Finally he wound up resigning. I'll see if I can find the letter he posted on-line explaining why. It is quite damning.
Among a segment of the fusion community, he is now on the outs. Why? He was willing to take a look at CF. What we have here is an automatic dismissal of a person's credentials because they are willing to consider a particular line of inquiry.
Which leads me to suspect you have not taken a recent serious look at this line of inquiry, because you reflexively believe it would mark you as a quack.
The people who have been working on this the last decade or so have been doing so very quietly, trying to figure out what is going on, and not making outrageous claims. They are, for the most part, exceptionally aware of the need to back up exceptional claims with hard data.
If they are, in fact, on to something interesting, but will automatically be labeled as kooks because they are looking at an unclean subject, I would propose that those doing the labeling are not, in fact, scientists.
I'm not planning on sinking any investment money into CF. I'm interested in what they have to say. I will note that Dr. Bussard was highly critical of the early CF work, and other than this one paper he distanced himself from it. However, he did confide in me that he believed there was some real physics underlying it, which, absent hype and exaggerated claims, warrented investigation.
No, I don't really take that because there are some very elementary observations in regards getting 'heat' from a nuclear reaction. The energy must be mediated by some very energetic particles, else there would be no such fusion, and the way in which any energetic particles give up their energy in heat, whether nucleons or hv, is by similarly energetic excitation of some form of thermal absorber. Clearly, the medium into which the nuclear energy is dissipated is going to be irradiated, and consequently other stuff in the locality not shileded is gonna pick up similar levels. You only need a few mW of neutrons to kill you....
You either get ~ unit eV heating, like solar energy (which is already enough to give you skin cancer!!) or you get something yet more energetic. How energetic do you think the products of a nuclear reaction are going to be? This is *very basic* E=mc^2 physics I'm talking about - if you transmute elements then you get some big particle energies to play about with, which'll kill you if you get in the way of enough of them to actually measure some heating.
I'm afraid I'm the one dealing with the numbers here, and those who think otherwise are running with faith-based reasoning.
You either get ~ unit eV heating, like solar energy (which is already enough to give you skin cancer!!) or you get something yet more energetic. How energetic do you think the products of a nuclear reaction are going to be? This is *very basic* E=mc^2 physics I'm talking about - if you transmute elements then you get some big particle energies to play about with, which'll kill you if you get in the way of enough of them to actually measure some heating.
I'm afraid I'm the one dealing with the numbers here, and those who think otherwise are running with faith-based reasoning.
-
Josh Cryer
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am
Palladium socks. I like it!
It would be a funny epitaph to Bussard's career if he turned out to have predicted cold fusion results.
Of course, if Polywell pans out that, it will be a very small footnote to designing the world's first workable fusion reactor.
Josh,
Interestingly, Newton wasn't just an alchemist by hobby, alchemy was actually his main interest and Principia Mathematica almost an afterthought by comparison of the amount of effort he put into the two. He wrote more than a million words on alchemy.
Newton was a product of his times, as we all are. Hermeneutics and alchemy weren't as discredited as they are now, because we have so much more empirical evidence to draw from.
I often wonder what sort of timeline would develop if you dropped a laptop with 2010 Wikipedia into Aristotle's lap.
It would be a funny epitaph to Bussard's career if he turned out to have predicted cold fusion results.
Of course, if Polywell pans out that, it will be a very small footnote to designing the world's first workable fusion reactor.
Josh,
Interestingly, Newton wasn't just an alchemist by hobby, alchemy was actually his main interest and Principia Mathematica almost an afterthought by comparison of the amount of effort he put into the two. He wrote more than a million words on alchemy.
Newton was a product of his times, as we all are. Hermeneutics and alchemy weren't as discredited as they are now, because we have so much more empirical evidence to draw from.
I often wonder what sort of timeline would develop if you dropped a laptop with 2010 Wikipedia into Aristotle's lap.
Chris,
You presume the reactions in question produce neutrons. All the early researchers were looking for neutrons, but finding only a few. They also presumed they were looking for DD fusion.
What is preposterous is believing these reactions are anything like what we normally consider to be fusion. Whatever is happening is not at all like happens between deuterium nuclei colliding in a hot plasma. In that sense you are absolutely right ... this is not high-energy fusion at work.
I am not well-acquainted with the reactions in question, but if the energy release is by large charged particles being released in water, it probably turns to heat pretty damned fast, with little or no ionizing radiation. Alphas give up their energy in a millimeter or two, I think. What about whole transition metal nuclei?
The current researchers shy away from calling it Cold Fusion. They prefer Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. If their reports are accurate, I believe there are at this point multiple replications of experments showing prolonged production of excess heat by people who actually know how to do calorimetery, and when they are done they analyze what had been electrode material of certified purity and find wholesale alchemy has occurred. They eliminate the possibility of contamination. Also, the resulting products have unnatural isotope ratios.
What I rather strongly suspect is that you have not done these experiments yourself. First, you don't believe they are possible, and second, you think they are something other than what they are. I confess, I have not run these tests. I have never attempted to make Higgs Bosons, either. I've only done a little hot fusion and I'm very glad my fusor does not do even a milliwatt of it. I am willing to let people with a specialty pursue that specialty, and not call them quacks. Especially Miley.
People thought the Curies were quacks, too. Energy from other than chemical reactions? Such a claim could not possibly stand in the light of day! Of course, the light of day is produced from elemental transmutations.
You presume the reactions in question produce neutrons. All the early researchers were looking for neutrons, but finding only a few. They also presumed they were looking for DD fusion.
What is preposterous is believing these reactions are anything like what we normally consider to be fusion. Whatever is happening is not at all like happens between deuterium nuclei colliding in a hot plasma. In that sense you are absolutely right ... this is not high-energy fusion at work.
I am not well-acquainted with the reactions in question, but if the energy release is by large charged particles being released in water, it probably turns to heat pretty damned fast, with little or no ionizing radiation. Alphas give up their energy in a millimeter or two, I think. What about whole transition metal nuclei?
The current researchers shy away from calling it Cold Fusion. They prefer Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. If their reports are accurate, I believe there are at this point multiple replications of experments showing prolonged production of excess heat by people who actually know how to do calorimetery, and when they are done they analyze what had been electrode material of certified purity and find wholesale alchemy has occurred. They eliminate the possibility of contamination. Also, the resulting products have unnatural isotope ratios.
What I rather strongly suspect is that you have not done these experiments yourself. First, you don't believe they are possible, and second, you think they are something other than what they are. I confess, I have not run these tests. I have never attempted to make Higgs Bosons, either. I've only done a little hot fusion and I'm very glad my fusor does not do even a milliwatt of it. I am willing to let people with a specialty pursue that specialty, and not call them quacks. Especially Miley.
People thought the Curies were quacks, too. Energy from other than chemical reactions? Such a claim could not possibly stand in the light of day! Of course, the light of day is produced from elemental transmutations.
Ever since I saw the Navy work a while back and heard Dr. B's explanation on the Space Show I thought there might be something to it.
The fact that nickel as well as palladium seem to work is also another positive sign relative to current theory (sketchy as it is).
What chaps my @$$ is that suppression of alternate views seems so common in science.
For instance: not enough time for microbes to evolve on earth. So why not in space? Or other planets. Then chunks get torn off and the seeds get scattered. Kind of like ID with out the I or the D.
The fact that nickel as well as palladium seem to work is also another positive sign relative to current theory (sketchy as it is).
What chaps my @$$ is that suppression of alternate views seems so common in science.
For instance: not enough time for microbes to evolve on earth. So why not in space? Or other planets. Then chunks get torn off and the seeds get scattered. Kind of like ID with out the I or the D.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
One of the things that interests me about LENR is what it has to say about present-day abundance of elements. If these reactions can occur in nature, we have something other than supernovae to account for how things got the way they are. An unappreciated mechanism such as this could be quite enlightening.
There are a couple of really wild ideas about protons fusing with certain elements, such as sodium, in living systems. Chris's objections become even more apt here: how the hell could anything survive nuclear reactions it its own cells? This particular concept is most likely horse$#!+, but if there are LENR mechanisms for releasing the energy non-destructively, maybe somebody could quietly re-examine the claims.
Real quietly. Don't tell anyone. Because this idea is wacky.
There are a couple of really wild ideas about protons fusing with certain elements, such as sodium, in living systems. Chris's objections become even more apt here: how the hell could anything survive nuclear reactions it its own cells? This particular concept is most likely horse$#!+, but if there are LENR mechanisms for releasing the energy non-destructively, maybe somebody could quietly re-examine the claims.
Real quietly. Don't tell anyone. Because this idea is wacky.