Posted on 05/25/2012 2:42:24 PM PDT by Kevmo
More on LENR at NASA: Bushnell and Zawodny Speak
May 24, 2012
Two interesting publications have just come out from NASA, one an article, and the other a video showing that NASA recognizes the promise of LENR and is getting involved in understanding what is going on in this field, and how to develop LENR technologies for real world applications.
Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist and NASA’s Langney Research Center has written an article entitled “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook” in which he discusses the current state of research in the field of LENR. First, he contends that there is indeed something real going on in the multitudes of experiments that show excess energy being produced.
By any rational measure, this evidence indicates something real is occurring. So, is LENR “Real?” Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse experimental evidence. And, yes – with effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is far from a “Narrow Band” set of physical phenomena.
He then goes on to ask what is happening in these reactions, and indicates that NASA is attracted to the Widom-Larsen theory as an explanation of what is going on. He summarizes the theory as follows:
The theory states that once some energy is added to load surfaces with hydrogen/protons, if the surface morphology enables high localized voltage gradients, then heavy electrons leading to ultra low energy neutrons will form– neutrons that never leave the surface. The neutrons set up isotope cascades which result in beta decay, heat and transmutations with the heavy electrons converting the beta decay gamma into heat.
Bushnell is careful to say that there is still much research to be done in order to understand LENR phenomena, but says that NASA has begun studies to test the validity of the Widom Larsen theory.
Simultaneous to the release of Bushnell’s article is a video featuring NASA’s Dr. Joseph Zawodny, Senior Research Scientist at Langney Research Center entitled Abundant Clean/Green Energy. Zawodny’s focus in the video is also on the Widom-Larsen theory, and explains how they are trying to test its correctness.
The ultimate goal, according to Zawodny is to find a way to create an inexpensive, clean form of energy which could be used not only by NASA in its space operations, but also something that could provide cheap, abundant energy for the whole world.
With NASA once again coming out with an endorsement of LENR as a potential solution to energy needs, we see that there is some kind of momentum building in the field — perhaps before too long a critical mass will be reached, and there will be a much more widespread acceptance of LENR as an important technological innovation.
76 Responses to More on LENR at NASA: Bushnell and Zawodny Speak
What are the facts in the article? Your proportion of words not from the article to words from the article is something like 5000 to 0. How can you know the facts without credibly reproducing the experiment?
And as far as useful devices, you "hot fusion" boys have been working on THAT for a lot longer than 19 years, have soaked up TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS in funding, and have not yet produced a device with a COP greater than one, much less a "useful device".
The NIF is a useful device. Fusion bombs are useful devices. High school students have reproduced hot fusion without question. In contrast, cold fusion is represented by an Italian con artist and elderly scientists making claims they can't back up.
I then provided reference to Storms book, which provides a much condensed and more easily read and understood summary of the state of LENR science. You refused to look at the data.
The elderly Storm's book is $100. It seems to me he's found another way to get money from gullible cold fusion suckers. He's probably doing better than Rossi and won't have to go to jail either.
You then said, "pick one paper and defend it", which I have done.
Really, how many quotes have you made from the article? All you did was provide a link and call me names.
And you now refuse to look at that paper and address the facts therein.
Once again, how can the facts be known without credibly reproducing the experiment? We do know for a fact that in 19 years it hasn't led to a useful device. It should have, considering all the claims of the con artists and fan boys saying it's going to solve all our energy problems.
The facts in the article speak for themselves. I don't need to provide quotes. Your laziness is not my problem.
Any person calling themselves a scientist, when presented with a reference, must read the entire article. That's called "intellectually honest scientific debate". But you're apparently incapable of such debate.
"How can you know the facts without credibly reproducing the experiment?
By reading the article, checking its included references, and comparing what it says about methodology with my fifty years of practicing science. The article itself is already a replication of previous work showing the same phenomena. The linked article is simply a more extensive/careful replication of past experiments done by others.
"The NIF is a useful device. Fusion bombs are useful devices. High school students have reproduced hot fusion without question.
None of which are practical devices for producing usable power, which was your original point. But, as usual, you change the subject.
"In contrast, cold fusion is represented by an Italian con artist and elderly scientists making claims they can't back up."
LOL. More intellectual dishonesty. LENR is "represented" by dozens to hundreds of scientists. Yeah, a lot of the guys are old....since when does that invalidate experimental work.
"The elderly Storm's book is $100. It seems to me he's found another way to get money from gullible cold fusion suckers. He's probably doing better than Rossi and won't have to go to jail either."
Shorter summaries of what Storms writes in his book containing many of the same facts are available on-line, for FREE, and have been linked to in these threads.
"Really, how many quotes have you made from the article? All you did was provide a link and call me names.
Providing the link is all that any REPUTABLE, HONEST scientist would need. And yes, I "call you names" because your behavior justifies it.
And in fact you don't even deserve THAT much attention. I've proved my point.....your intellectual dishonesty and unwillingness to engage in an honest debate of the science.
So henceforth, you will get exactly the attention you deserve.....which is none.
Your laziness is the problem (not to mention your gullibility).
By reading the article, checking its included references, and comparing what it says about methodology with my fifty years of practicing science.
That's what it all boils down to -- Warthog says so. Anybody can make claims on the Internet. Prove you have 50 years of experience as a scientist. Prove you're not in the bottom 1% as your posts on FR indicate.
My way of credibly reproducing the experiment is the only way to know the facts.
None of which are practical devices for producing usable power, which was your original point.
Prove it.
So henceforth, you will get exactly the attention you deserve.....which is none.
Promises, promises.
Coefficient of performance (COP) is a measure for heat pumps. Someone with your claimed credentials should know better.
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.