Posted on 12/20/2010 1:24:08 AM PST by Kevmo
That approach to an inductive area of research is, unfortunately, probably valid. Wait & see for a couple of years. By that time, the outcome would be deductive rather than inductive.
The trick for scientists is to find the proof, one way or another, to find the piece of the puzzle that brings this from an inductive pursuit to a deductive one.
I consider this hydrino theory to be one of several that might explain cold fusion.
Here are the 2 that I think are the best:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SinhaKPamodelfore.pdf
Sinha, K.P. and A. Meulenberg. A model for enhanced fusion reaction in a solid matrix of metal deuterides.
in ICCF-14 International Conference on
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2008. Washington, DC.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LawandyNMinteractio.pdf
Interactions of charged particles on surfaces
Nabil M. Lawandya Department of Physics and Division of Engineering,
Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, USA
Received 5 October 2009; accepted 11 November 2009; published online 7
December 2009
Charges of the same polarity bound to a surface with a large dielectric
contrast exhibit an attractive long-range Coulomb interaction, which
leads to a two-particle bound state. Ensembles of like charges
experience a collective long-range interaction, which results in
compacted structures with interparticle separations that can be orders
of magnitude smaller than the equilibrium separation of the pair
potential minimum. Simulations indicate that ensembles of surface bound
nuclei, such as D or T, exhibit separations small enough to result in
significant rates of fusion. (c) 2009 American Institute of Physics.
Thank you for posting this.
I’m sorry that you are being attacked also over the claims in the article.
If the technology pans out I think the quality of life all over the world will improve and if it doesn’t then nothing changes. In the meantime the research is fascinating.
It might also be said that they are located only ten miles from the place Martians were said to have landed in 1938.
” I believe that any kind of true energy breakthrough will change the world more than any other single thing.”
That may be because you ascribe the worlds problems to oil rather than human nature. A world that is positvely crammed with oil, oil shale, oil sands, coal etc does not need a wonder substance; it already has one.
I forgot to add that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
***Cold fusion findings are ordinary claims and they are providing ordinary evidence. Hundreds of peer-reviewed articles, hundreds of replications over the last 20 years.
You’re the one that invoked the laws of physics, not me.
***Your post was sentence after sentence basically reaffirming what I said. Get a grip.
The whole article is just one non-sequitor following another.
***Just like your posting behavior.
Call me when I can buy a hydrino powered car that has reasonable performance for less than a Corolla.
***Again, this is raising the bar. Your approach is thoroughly invalid. Why can’t we free up $20B for research into this area which has already produced thousands of megajoules and ignition when the Tokomak reactors have produced 6 megajoules?
The bar for hot fusion has been self-ignition and sustained reaction. We’ve spent $billions and got neither over 50 years. All the while in this backwater technology, guys have produced both.
A typical cold fusion experiment using Seebeck calorimeter
costs roughly $50,000 including all equipment, and they are run by volunteers and retired professors. Some have produced 50 to 300 megajoules in one run. They have achieved the two goals hot fusion has failed to reach for 60 years: breakeven and full ignition.
The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) at the Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy cost “about a billion dollars” to construct and $70 million a year to operate. It produced 6 megajoules in one experiment, the world record run for hot fusion.
Read. Later
.
Visit the wikipedia page I linked to in another post. It refutes all your assertions (I have no doubt you’ll pooh pooh Wikipedia but the article contains links to research refuting Mill’s “science”). You ad hominem attacks on posters who disagree with you really do nothing to support your case plus your claim to have made money in cold fusion immediately puts your support for balcklight in the suspect category. It would seem you’re here to shill for a company, not enlighten.
Tell it to NASA!
Sounds like another energy hoax. A lot like global warming and cold fusion.
It isn't even good nonsense.
Highly unlikely that it is environmentally safe. Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is known to be toxic. It has killed huge numbers of people. Furthermore it is an environmental pollutant even more widespread than CO2 and is detectable in rivers and lakes throughout the country. Huge majorities of the country believe that it should be totally banned.
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
..... Science is not advanced by lingering within comfortable and well understood bounds. But stepping beyond those bounds inevitably invites skepticism. I’m not qualified to judge either the validity of hydrino power generation claims or the veracity of its supporters. But Thomas Edison did not believe in the concept of alternating current. Even after Tesla had invented an efficient AC generator, Edison aggressively and publicly campaigned against it (albeit mostly due to commercial considerations). Sometimes even the most astute and accomplished minds can be wrong. Hydrino technology deserves ample time to prove or disprove itself, just as is being done with fusion technology.
Ways to work around the law of conservation of energy have been around for at least 100 years. They are an excellent way to make money off of the gullible. Unlike mans laws, the laws of physics are absolute.
It is shear and utter crackpot lunacy. There is nothing to prove except that PT Barnum was right. Are you one of those fools, or is it just the investors?
... of separating investors from their money.
You can't be serious. This is the chemical equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.
Black Light is so patently fraudulent that I don’t need a physics degree to see that. I’ll take the word of many physicists who have looked at Mill’s work and declared there are gaping holes in his math and conclusions. If there were merit there they would see it. They don’t.
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.