Posted on 12/22/2011 3:47:53 AM PST by Kevmo
The Cold Fusion Ping List
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://ecatnews.com/?p=1144
http://vixra.org/abs/1112.0043
The Cold Fusion Ping List
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
Pinging my favorite freeper cosmologists.
In accordance with the BSM-SG model, the process known as electron capture (p + e- -> n) is just a folding of the twisted shape of the proton until it obtains the shape of the neutron as a double twisted torus, held in this shape by the SG forces. Then the charge in the far field disappears. This happens in some nuclear reactions and especially in the radioactive decay of the fission chain reactions leading to unstable nuclei. One of the first of such processes experimentally invoked is the Don Borglhi experiment known as a “synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons” at low energy. The BSM-SG model also provides an answer to the long standing problem of the “missing neutrino” from the Sun. The resulting locked E-field of the neutron in the conversion of the proton to a neutron is wrongly attributed to the emission of a neutrino particle.
But according to super string theory when any of the dimensions of space begin to uncurl the virtual particles trapped there can assume any indentity imposed upon them by the moving gravitational field generated by lose of mass due to emerging cat hair.
In theory of course. Nothing yet proved.
Thanks. I downloaded and kinda struggled through the paper, and it has some things that really stood out to me:
The prediction/projection of a type of “cosmological pressure” that does away with the need for dark energy.
Also, the idea that cold fusion might be seen as some sort of (and I am loosely giving it a description) resonance effect, with much less radiation emitted/resulted because you are not relying on smashing things together with all the resultant debris.
The problem with that type of theory is that you could then expect for it to sometimes happen naturally. And I don’t know or haven’t heard of any serious tests spectroscopic or otherwise that show any spontaneous changes in purified samples of elements “off the shelf”.
It WOULD APPEAR however that this theory is testable - at least far more testable than and string theory approaches.
Thanks!
It may be that the Coulomb Barrier is ‘neutralized’ by the presence of the catalyst and an initial ‘energy input’ that allows the free association of the two other elements’ nuclei, thus allowing exchange of protons, neutrons, etc. The ‘cold fusion’ may be like a ‘virus’ that mimics it’s host’s cellular materials, and thus defeats the host’s immune system, or at least fools it into allowing entry..........
From Schrodinger's cat, I suppose.........
They can compare their prediction of energy output to the thousands of experiments that Kevmo likes to cite, or do they even bother with a prediction of energy output?
viXra is an open repository for scientific articles. It does not endorse preprints accepted on its website, nor does it review them against criteria such as correctness or author's credentials.[4] Because of this ViXra contains many articles of debatable scientific merit.
Well, the energy output would depend on the rate of reaction. The theory seems to tell us how it might happen, but not how often.
Simple energy tests can surely show us something is going on, but beyond that, they are pretty variable and unreliable.
Spectroscopic and electron-diffraction analysis, if the tests were performed over a wide variety of elements/isotopes, would give much, much more concrete results. And as a bonus we could get some ideas about the rate of reaction, thus predictions of energy output.
But there is an important point - as the paper correctly points out, elements below iron give up binding energy when fused. That’s what makes a hydrogen bomb blow up.
Elements above iron need to have energy ADDED to make them “fuse” (or assume stable configurations of higher atomic mass).
So even if it works for the heavy, dense elements, there ends up being an energy cost not an energy surplus.
arXiv backwards.
There are a lot of papers at arXiv of “debatable scientific merit”, so that quality by itself isn’t enough to condemn something.
Perhaps they should have replaced the highlighted word with, dubious.
A minor quibble for arXiv, but the highest praise possible for viXra.
Simple energy tests can surely show us something is going on, but beyond that, they are pretty variable and unreliable.
Spectroscopic and electron-diffraction analysis, if the tests were performed over a wide variety of elements/isotopes, would give much, much more concrete results. And as a bonus we could get some ideas about the rate of reaction, thus predictions of energy output.
Pretty much I agree, but it's been over 20 years for cold fusion. At best, it's still a scientific anomaly. It's getting moldy and rotten from being in the basement of science for so long.
That’s why we need a testable theory. With a testable theory, the experimental setups can be controlled to the point where they can maximize the results.
Without a theory, they’re kind of shooting in the dark. Cold fusion happens Only on a Tuesday if I was in too much of a hurry to take a shower before work, and Mars is retrograde...
I think it is a real phenomenon, there are simply too many examples of results, yeah, there are plenty of nutballs in the mix but some of these guys are the very best. And it only takes one actual positive result, it would help a whole lot if it’s reproducible.
This will be my standard post to moonboy that says you’re not worth trying to have reasonable discussion, also says “buzz off” & doesn’t leave crickets. But if it offends you to the point that you get it removed like my prior innocuous citation then I’ll have to come up with some other ‘ignore button’ post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62
This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.
55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Doesn’t super string theory postulate 11 dimensions? At least this theory has some testability points in this dimension.
Right. The quantity over quality argument doesn't make any sense. All cold fusion needs is a theory that accurately predicts output. But seeing how the thousands of results so far are all anomalous and all over the place, I don't think it's going to happen.
Of the 14,700 experiments you cite from your Chinese source, which ones can be used as a test?
This will be my standard post to moonboy that says you’re not worth trying to have reasonable discussion, also says “buzz off” & doesn’t leave crickets. But if it offends you to the point that you get it removed like my prior innocuous citation then I’ll have to come up with some other ‘ignore button’ post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62
This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.
55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
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.