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
A blog has dated posts and I don’t see it. That LENR site is an informational website. Wordpress is a first class organization by the way.
It's a site that tries to make the information on it seem more important than it really is. See my previous post.
Wordpress is a first class organization by the way.
Yes, it is a terrific blog hosting company.
LOL. Desperation strikes again. You get more ridiculous all the time.
"The Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry (ISSN 0022-0728) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal on electroanalytical chemistry, published by Elsevier."
Elsevier is one of the premier science publishing houses in the world. Their journals are top notch.
"The journal, which the New York Times describes as "a specialty publication not widely circulated,"[1] became more broadly known in 1989 when Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons published a description of their controversial cold fusion research in it, withdrawing their work from publication in Nature after questions were raised during peer review there.[1]
LOL. ALL "specialty journals" are "not widely circulated". And I hardly take the NYT as an authoritative voice in science publication. Or much of anything other than liberal propaganda. And you quote it HERE??? Ludicrous.
As I said....lies and spin.....it's what you do. Try actually addressing the science instead of trying to sell the ridiculous point that have a site hosted on Wordpress somehow invalidates the contents of the site hosted.
Being archived on someone's personal website doesn't count for much.
Irrelevant. Address the science in the reference.
I'm well aware of "Current Contents" and the concept of the "citation index". Frankly, I think that idea of trying to "measure the importance" of a science article is simply bullshit. Popularity does not equal importance.
"Being archived on someone's personal website doesn't count for much."
Again irrelevant. The article is from a legitimate peer reviewed journal. The fact that a copy or copies exist at places other than in the printed pages of the paper journal means precisely nothing, despite your desperate efforts to sell the idea that the existence of such somehow invalidates the published science. Clue....it doesn't.
Doesn't it ever bother you to be so dishonest?? I simply can't imagine anyone with a legitimate technical education acting as you do.
When are you going to address it, rather than providing links to bottom tier articles from bottom tier journals copy and pasted to someone's personal website?
I did address it. Read the publication. Show me the errors of experimentation that invalidate the findings.
Don't come out with vague bullshit about "bottom tier articles from bottom tier journals" when you were willing to accept a NON-PEER REVIEWED internal research report of far lesser quality and thoroughness.
Intellectual dishonesty at every turn. You just can't stop, can you?
Where’s the scientific validation of this article? Where has it been cited since 1993? And you still haven’t addressed the science. Your link to a personal website is your meager contribution.
The NASA memo was one in a million. I explained why it was believable. You can't automatically assume that every piece of junk you link to falls into the same category.
The article originated in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemisty, a well respected peer reviewed scientific journal. The fact that the particular copy I chose to link to happens to reside at LENR/CNAR is of zero relevance to the validity of the data contained in the article.
"The NASA memo was one in a million. I explained why it was believable. You can't automatically assume that every piece of junk you link to falls into the same category."
So, explain why this specific linked article is wrong. Where are the errors in the experiments detailed? Address the science in THIS article. Try honest debate just ONCE.
But you won't.
It isn't well respected. It's the same journal where Fleischmann and Pons went to ruin their careers.
And you still can't show where your paper has been cited since 1993.
Actually, Pons/Fleischmann's peer-reviewed article in JEAC has never been refuted. A lot of smoke has been thrown up by you and your fellow skeptopaths, but when one traces through the real science, P/F have refuted every criticism.
"And you still can't show where your paper has been cited since 1993."
WHY do you keep dragging this argument up?? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the science. WHY don't you address the supposed errors/mistakes in the paper itself?? My guess is because you simply can't, and are forced to fall back on specious arguments of this sort.
And that sort of tactic is the absolute rule when any of your fellow skeptopaths show up. Cite any actual experimental evidence, and they run like vampires when they smell garlic.
Your actions make Rossi look like a pillar of veracity.
Being ignored is just as bad. As I said their careers were ruined.
WHY do you keep dragging this argument up?? It has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the science.
Because publishing articles and then having them cited by subsequent articles that either affirm the claims or refute them is how most science is done, not in blogs as is done with cold fusion.
WHY don't you address the supposed errors/mistakes in the paper itself??
Because I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim. I'm not the one pumping up a disreputable science filled with con artists like Rossi and scientists like George Miley making claims he can't back up.
Your actions make Rossi look like a pillar of veracity.
Wow! A backhanded admission, after months of daily hype by you and Kevmo that Rossi was making things up.
Yup, and when the history of CF is definitively written, you skeptopaths are going to have a lot to answer for. Not just for Pons/Fleischmann, but Bockris and many others, and outright fraud (MIT "failed replication").
"Because publishing articles and then having them cited by subsequent articles that either affirm the claims or refute them is how most science is done, not in blogs as is done with cold fusion."
Still lying. The article I cited did not originate in a blog. Science is discussed everywhere nowadays, including in blogs (but LENR/CANR is NOT a "blog", any more than FR is). And the stifling of publication in certain journals is another thing you skeptopaths are going to have to answer for (many, many cases documented, extending even to Nobel Prize physicists (Julian Schwinger)).
"Because I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim. I'm not the one pumping up a disreputable science filled with con artists like Rossi and scientists like George Miley making claims he can't back up.
The article is there. Address the science in the article. Stop dancing around the issue and bringing in more extraneous and irrelevant issues.
"Wow! A backhanded admission, after months of daily hype by you and Kevmo that Rossi was making things up.
Yes, Rossi uses misdirection quite heavily to lead potential competitors astray. There is stil NO evicence whatsoever that he has lied about the core of his discovery (generation of large amounts of heat energy).
You're really good a "shuckin' and jivin" around the core issue. You once told me to pick and article and "support it" (whatever that means). Well, there is the article, from a peer-reviewed journal, which definitively makes the science case for fusion in Pd/D2 systems. The work, IMO, was both thorough and carefully done. I see no errors of any significance.
Now PUT UP or SHUT UP.
LOL! "The Truth is Out There."
Still lying. The article I cited did not originate in a blog.
I didn't say otherwise.
Science is discussed everywhere nowadays, including in blogs (but LENR/CANR is NOT a "blog", any more than FR is).
The business of science is still done in journals. The quality of blog discussions is all over the place. LENR/CANR is a personal website hosted on Wordpress.
The work, IMO, was both thorough and carefully done. I see no errors of any significance.
That's only works for people who are impressed by your gullibility. I'm not. Where has the article been cited over the past 19 years?
Still trying to sell the idea that citation (or lack of same) actually means something. It doesn't. Address the science in the paper. Show me the errors. Your shuckin' and jivin' is getting old.
I have yet to see a single skeptopath actually reference the journal articles that supposedly disprove LENR. Not even once.
Actually it does. Other scientists who have lab equipment and who are paid to do such things have either refuted the article or ignored it, going by your non-response. Either, way, that indicates it's junk.
I see no reason why someone on a conservative politics forum should have to do the work that scientists have had 19 years to do.
Address the science in the paper.
Will you ever address the scientific response to the paper? You're the one promoting a disreputable science. The burden of proof is on you.
The "scientific response" has exactly zero to do with the quality of science IN the paper. Your constant assertions to the contrary are simply your continuing intellectual dishonesty. The paper is there. The methodology and results are there. Show me the errors in them. Or post a link to a paper that has refuted/falsified that specific paper. Constantly ducking the issue simply proves again that you are a fraud.
Sure it does. 19 years have passed. The article hasn't been influential nor has it led to a useful device.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and promoting the disreputable science.
No, it does NOT. Neither of those notions has anything whatsover to do with the facts in the article. Those facts either correctly express how nature works, or they don't. The "influentuality" of the paper is sociology...not science.
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 burden of proof is on the one making the claim and promoting the disreputable science."
And with this statement, you have talked yourself in a complete circle and back to your starting point. Let me refresh your memory:
You made the above statement previously quite a while ago. I then provided references to the scientific papers to be found at LENR/CANR. You refused to look at the data because "it would be too much work".
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.
You then said, "pick one paper and defend it", which I have done. And you now refuse to look at that paper and address the facts therein. And then repeat once again that the burden of proof is "on me".
That, dear boy, is intellectual dishonesty of argument. You are a disgrace to whatever institution granted your degree or degrees.
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.