Posted on 01/09/2012 5:33:28 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
On March 23, 1989, the international scientific environment, and not only that, was deeply surprised because of the abrupt announcement by two Scientists, one of them at world-class level (M. Fleischmann), that they had detected measurable, and unexplainable, excess energy after prolonged electrolysis of Heavy Water using Palladium (Pd) rods as cathode. Such a phenomenon, that cannot be ascribed to usual chemistry or physics reactions, was improperly given the odd name “cold fusion”, remembering similarities with the “muon-catalysed fusion” predicted (1952) by A. Sacharov and measured (1956) by L. Alvarez (Nobel Laureates): both fusion were realised at room temperatures and not at the “usual” several million of °C.
The results, apart from the initial enthusiasm, were generally considered with large scepticism from most of the science community because they were completely unexpected in theory, and poorly reproducible in the experiments. As a consequence, only the Researchers and a few Institutions continued the studies that got - mostly by chance - some good results and of, enough high, scientific quality.
Among them we mention NASA and John Bockris at A&M Texas, who started in July 1989 an investigation looking for occurring of usual Deuterium-Deuterium (D-D) fusion with emission of neutrons (i.e. strong force interaction). They did not find it but NASA detected unexplainable behaviour of Pd tube when heated at high temperatures (350°C) and Hydrogen (H2) or Deuterium (D2) gas were allowed to flow in and out. In short, the behaviour of energy production was as expected using H2 gas but completely unexpected with D2. Heat production was detected both in the incoming and out-coming phases of the gas: such effect was against any previous scientific experience! Such key results were not communicated immediately to the Scientific Community until, by chance, a report was found inside a drawer and wide-spread only in 2004. In December 2009 another similar experiment was performed, devoted to reconfirm the thermal anomalies found on 1989. The results, thanks to specific and improved instruments, were of even better quality. Again, the results were not made public until the document was found, by chance, on the web in August 2011. Recently, top level NASA Researchers are more “open” about their results produced “at home”.
Apart from such episodes, over one thousand Researchers, mainly in J, I, USA, RUS, CP, IND, F, D, continued such studies, usually with low budget constrains. Among them, the methodologies developed, models introduced and results obtained, by M. Srinivasan, Preparata-Del Giudice, A. Takahashi, P. Hagelstein, E. Storm, Chubb-Chubb, M. Kubre, Piantelli-Focardi, F. Celani, Y. Iwamura, G. Miley, T. Mizuno, De Ninno-Violante, H. Kozima, Larsen-Widom, X.Z. Li, J. Biberian, A. Huke, were especially innovative: published most of the results found or models developed. So, in spite of adverse conditions, the progress from the science point of view was remarkable: about theory, is “growing” a model based on weak force interaction.
A big step forward happened when, thanks to Y. Arata (Osaka Univ.-J), who, since 2002, introduced proper nano-materials (Pd, at size of 5-20 nm), dispersed in an anti-sintering matrix (ZrO2), and in contact to pressurised D2 gas. The results of Arata were the first ones fully reproduced by other scientists (A. Takahashi, A. Kitamura, Japan) and even using materials produced by an independent Industry (Santoku K.K.). Later, the original findings were even improved with better results thanks to new materials (based on ZrO2-Ni-Pd), always nano-sized, as prepared by B. Ahern (USA) and initially studied since 2005 by Arata.
As far as recent claims of very large excess power using “micro-nano-sized Nickel” interacting with H2 at high pressure and temperatures are concerned, coming from groups operating in Italy and Greece, we have to underline that both groups refused (because, according to them, patents/business constrains), up to now, independent tests of their apparatus: then, we cannot give scientific credit, as to-day, to their work. BTW, on November 2011, F. Celani asked to the Italian A. Rossi, through a widespread science magazine (Focus), to validate one of his 10kW's device. Even the public “persuasion” of the Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson was enough to get such device for scientific, fully independent, tests.
Nevertheless, we believe that so many evidences have been collected by serious Scientists up to now, that the reality of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions may be soon acknowledged by the whole scientific community, opening the way towards the fully exploration of their potential for practical applications and long term sustainability of this, practically infinite, energy source.
In these weeks our group, working with long and thin wires having the surface coated with micro-nano-particles, get re-confirmation of a phenomenon, by us, seldom observed in some previous experiments: the specific alloy used (Cu-Ni), that usually has Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) of the resistance, if absorbs large amount of Hydrogen, changes to Negative TC. Such phenomenon is correlated to anomalous heat production and increases as the anomalous heat increases. If such key phenomenon will be kept under full control, because its behaviour can be observed with simple instrumentation, it can be open the door to systematic work, worldwide, to find the “optimal” material and operating point.
All of the dictators you mentioned came from countries that were ripe for revolution. Then after one generation, everyone grew up in that society and didn’t know anything better.
Are you telling me YOU would sit and let O take over, seriously? I doubt it and it’s not just you, it’s anyone free who would be oppressed.
People thought the Clinton’s wouldn’t leave; leftists whackjobs thought Bush wasn’t going to leave and that he was going to put people in FEMA camps.
I think even the left is getting tired of O. All he has left is the adoring press. Do you think people that are out of work, lost their house and see their buying power disintegrate are going to support and O dictatorship, doubt it.
The author cites quantity, but the problem is a lack of quality. The "many evidences" lack consistency and predictability that would imply a workable underlying theory.
The article starts off with a mention of catalyzed muon fusion, which is real and scientifically accepted. It was explained theoretically within a year of its observation with technology from over 50 years ago. Compare that with the wheel spinning and fraud that surrounds modern cold fusion.
There has been only ONE proven instance of fraud in cold fusion research. "If" Rossi is shown to be fraudulent, he will be #2.
“The author cites quantity, but the problem is a lack of quality. The “many evidences” lack consistency and predictability that would imply a workable underlying theory.”
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVproceeding.pdf
Quote from the above:
“It can no longer be asserted rationally that there no heat effect in any of the very large number of experiments reported here and elsewhere [5], or that the effect is the
result of (unknown) energy storage or (unseen) chemistry. Also, at this point, any claim that the Fleischmann-Pons Effect is “irreproducible” is not only unsound, it is unscientific. Where and when we are capable of reproducing all parameters critical to the effect, we reproduce the
effect.”
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVproceedinga.pdf
You are ignorant. Educate yourself.
The FP Effect is variable and anomalous. No one is able to accurately calculate energy output.
You are ignorant. Educate yourself.
Stop twisting what I've said.
Sure. We'll put Rossi in the "Nothing but hype," "Misleading rumors," "Mystery customers," and "Crappy demos (thanks Kevmo)" categories until he's hauled off to jail AGAIN.
Thanks for posting this, WW
The Cold Fusion Ping List
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
The ability to "accurately calculate energy output" is irrelevant to the reality of the effect. I doubt that even today the folks doing research in ceramic superconductors can predict the properties of any given batch of materials.
"Stop twisting what I've said."
I've "twisted" nothing. You ARE ignorant, and need to study the science of the situation. At this point, I'm not assuming that you are also stupid. THAT will reveal itself when you refuse to study the evidence. But I have my suspicions on the subject.
The reality is the effect is variable, inconsistent, and unexplained, except where further study was done and the experiments were found to be bad or there were measurement errors.
At least with superconductors, there is accepted theory. They can go back and look at a batch and figure out what's different about it, if there are variable results.
"Reproducing" anomalous results is nothing special. It's like calling somebody ignorant and stupid. Any hack can do it.
Yeah, that is the standard refrain of the psycho-skeptic crowd. It happens not to be true.
"At least with superconductors, there is accepted theory. They can go back and look at a batch and figure out what's different about it, if there are variable results."
LOL, ssuuuurre they can. They can just do an ab initio calculation and arrive at a result. Balderdash.
""Reproducing" anomalous results is nothing special.
"Reproducing" anomalous results is precisely what science is all about. That comes first. "Theory" and calculation follow along after, sometimes much later. Which is why I can't believe that you have any significant background in science. I can't imagine even a BS graduate in one of the "hard sciences" making such a comment, much less believing it.
"It's like calling somebody ignorant and stupid. Any hack can do it. "
Yeah, but it takes someone special to actually BE both ignorant and stupid. Ignorance is correctable. Stupidity is refusing to correct ignorance.
And then there is the object of your obsession, modern cold fusion, after more than 20 years its singular superstar is an ex-con from Italy with a tendency for incomprehensible tirades. I hope you don't get cold waiting in line at the Home Depot for your ecat.
Thus speaks ignorance. Have you read EVEN ONE actual scientific paper on ANY cold fusion experiment? Science isn't about "superstars", it's about experimental data (NOT math models). This is what Einstein, Feynmann, and every HONEST scientific researcher knows and says.
Read McKubre's summary of the history of CF research in the Foreword of the ICCF conference proceedings: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVproceeding.pdf For good or ill, doing a successful electrolysis CF experiment if difficult in the extreme. Experiments in ceramic superconductors are child's play by comparison.
And this is in addition to a subset of the scientific community of patho/psycho skeptics throwing sand in the gears of the machinery by indulging in "political science" (tenure denial, grant denial, etc.) and fraudulent experiments (MIT).
Pretty good discussion here until the flat-earth loon showed up.
Then why do 99% of the threads you and Kevmo post mention Rossi?
Kevmo likes to cite over 14,000 CF experiments from his Chinese source. They can't be all that difficult.
You believe Rossi built a successful device in his garage. Once again, it can't be that difficult.
I've read ever paper that calls CF critics psycho-skeptics and idiots the way you do.
Perhaps because he is the only one that is getting reported on?? Fortunately, that is now changing and other less "Edisonian" researchers are coming out of the woodwork.
I see you still suffer from reading comprehension problems. If you will note, I referred to electrolysis CF experiments.
"You believe Rossi built a successful device in his garage. Once again, it can't be that difficult."
Rossi used a gas-loading approach. Apparently, once you get away from electrolysis, it "is" that easy. All the "hot news" reports of late are using "gas-loading".
I'll take that as an affirmative answer that you've never read a CF scientific paper. Scientists use slightly more esoteric language when calling a fellow researcher an idiot in a peer-reviewed paper. This is a discussion forum. I use the same sort of language that you psycho-skeptics do.
So where are the rate of reaction calculations that can predict energy output? Putting CF, LENR, or whatever you want to call it on the same footing as 50 year old muon catalyzed cold fusion isn't too much to ask. That's the point I keep trying to make which you keep sidestepping with personal attacks for some reason.
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.