Posted on 12/03/2012 11:44:28 PM PST by Kevmo
Cold Fusion Pioneer says LENR is not Fusion
Published November 20, 2012. | By jennifer.
The man who invented the term “cold fusion” now says that the effect popularly described as cold fusion or low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) is not fusion. Professor Emeritus Steven E. Jones told Sterling D. Allan of Pure Energy Systems that he’s not sure what to call the effect.
Jones is the man who came up with the term cold fusion in a Scientific American article in July 1987. Jones was actually researching the phenomenon two full years before Pons and Fleischmann put it on the map. Yet he is still unsure of what to call it after nearly thirty years of research.
Like many researchers Jones has been able to create excess heat in electrolytic cells but hasn’t been able to explain where it comes from. Jones told Allan that he thinks the process should not be called “fusion” because it doesn’t exhibit the characteristics of fusion. He thinks the use of the term fusion makes it easy for naysayers to ignore and shutdown LENR experiments.
Jones doesn’t like the term LENR either because he thinks that a lot of the processes involved are not nuclear. If that’s true it means a lot of LENR researchers have been looking in the wrong places. In other words it is a chemical or electrochemical process. It also lends credence to Andrea Rossi’s recent claims that he can achieve LENR reactions through a gas fired device.
Jones proposed that LENR be called “Freedom Energy” which is a misleading term because it lends credence to the misleading notion that cold fusion is free energy. There is no such as free energy because a device has to be built and energy has to be fed into to achieve the reaction. Since you would have to pay for the device and the energy neither is free. A better term might “anomalous xs heat” which would enable researchers to examine the phenomenon without getting lynched by physicists.
Jones attempt to replicate Peter Davey's World War II era research courtesy Pure Energy Systems
Jones has managed to replicate Pons and Fleischmann’s famous experiments and create excess heat in a bell shaped electrode apparatus. Interestingly enough Jones copied his design from Peter Davey a scientist from New Zealand who performed similar experiments in the 1940s. Jones believes that Davey produced amounts of energy that were several times what he put into his device over forty years before Pons and Fleischmann got together in Utah.
More of Steven Jones' back room experiments
Jones has been invited to give a lecture on his work and theories at the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR) at the University of Missouri. Jones apparently gave the lecture in October although Allan doesn’t say whether he did or not. A Power Point of Jones lecture is available online. Jones lecture is evidence of the importance of openness to LENR at a major university. His revelations also indicate that the future of LENR is in the hands of garage researchers and not the scientific establishment.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
--------------------------------------------------------------
The morning after Pons and Fleischmann made the evening news I remarked to several coworkers that calling the reaction cold fusion was a huge mistake because so many physicists were feeding at the government’s high temperature fusion research trough.
“Andrea Rossi’s recent claims ...”
There is no end to this laugh train....Kevmo, you aren’t done with this guy yet?
Never mind all that - the real question is, “Can you run a tricked-out DeLorean with it?”
Only being half facetious; anything that ameliorates our dependence on Arab oil - and most especially Arabs - would be a gift from on high.
Good article.
I am not quite half-way through an excellent book on CF:
"Excess Heat-Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed" by Charles G. Beaudette.
Beaudette is a retired electrical engineer (former instrument engineer and company top manager) who attended one of the ICCF conferences, as he put it "on a whim". Being impressed by the quality of the data presented, he decided to investigate the science as a retirement hobby. Hence the book.
Unlike Storms book, which focuses on complete (but shallow) coverage of the entire available science of CF, Beaudette is more selective, focusing tightly on the key experiments, experimenters, and replications. He goes into much greater depth on each experiment and experimenter. The book is also much more readable by the "non-scientist", while still containing sufficient references to convince the scientifically oriented.
Highly recommended.
The skeptopaths will recognize themselves in the table on page 134.
I saw a nice clean DeLorean a few months ago. If I owned one, I would think seriously of hot gluing a Mr. Fusion to the roof.
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-fundamental-electromagnetism.html Don’t forget that piece yesterday ~ sorta kinda makes a statement about ‘settled law’ ~ when it comes to the four fundamental forces ~ probably has relevance to whatever is going on in LENR
other than the fact color video will never be the same once they get this phenomenon corraled, this might explain excess heat ~ that is, heat beyond that predicted by the standard models and equations.
Yes, I thought that book was a good read also. The current state of the science of LENR is that the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated and it is an established scientific fact. But it is not an established ENGINEERING field because the effect is difficult to generate and there is still some lingering stigma associated with the field. Just think of where computers would be right now if silicon transistors had a strong stigma associated with them in the early days. We would be marvelling at individual logic gate chips.
As a preliminary result, it appears that this pressure related temperature change in Hydrogen could account for the vast majority of the demonstrated rise in power in Celani's graph above the 10 watt baseline that the run starts at.Read the story here, along with lots of interesting comments pointing out how error-prone the methods they are using can be:
See http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/163-a-partial-explaination for the details.
That’s the big problem with cold fusion/LENR: you need to be able to consistently demonstrate a long-running reaction which generates energy well in excess of any possible chemical reaction.
Been done, multiple times with replications galore. All ignored by the skeptopaths. Read Beaudette's book. Documented in depth there.
I simply do not understand why the debate still rages.
A simple before/after spectrographic profile should answer the question once and for all.
It’s not rocket science.
Well, almost.
The current state of the science of LENR is that the Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated and it is an established scientific fact.Yet he ignores the actual report from the web site that they appear to have discovered an error that could explain the "excess" heat.
Meanwhile, we're still waiting for someone, anyone, to present credible evidence for a LENR device that can brew a cup of tea. So far, no one has even come close.
What makes you think that the MFMP experiment is the proof that Kevmo is referring to?? There are literally dozens of replications in refereed papers. The MFMP guys "think" they "may" have discovered an error. But their cell is not identical to Celani's, and in fact they know that the glass work of the seal on their cell was flawed as it came from the glass shop (scratched and leaked). They attempted a polish to smooth it themselves, but this "error" may well be due to their cell's known flaw.
And since they are in regular communication with Celani, the error will indoubtedly either be fixed, or the source clarified.
"Meanwhile, we're still waiting for someone, anyone, to present credible evidence for a LENR device that can brew a cup of tea. So far, no one has even come close.
Again....been done. The Beaudette book explains things in sufficient simplicity that even a scientific illiterate like youself can understand.
Really?? And what sort of spectrography would that be?? There are several dozen sorts of spectroscopy available. (note...I am a spectrographer by original training, so am familiar with most of them).
What makes you think that the MFMP experiment is the proof that Kevmo is referring to??
***Typical skeptopath. Quick to accuse even fellow freepers of lying, won’t read the information you present.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.