Cold Fusion at 20: Hope Springs Eternal

re: Cold Fusion at 20: Hope Springs Eternal

nextbigfuture — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:44:05 GMT

20 years of ridicule and quashing this field and now the naysayers have retreated to "this could be unusual new physics but won't be an energy source". The quashing and ridicule was claiming that it was complete fraud and pathological errors. Now it could be "unusual new physics". Even if it was "only" "unusual new physics", that is definitely a worthy thing to investigate. "Unusual new physics" is valid science. Public apologies and mia culpas should be published if that is all this has been. But it is "unusual new physics" with the chance of effects which could lead to nearly unlimited clean energy.

You have been hearing it for years and years and now it is turning out that those who have ridiculed and suppressed it were wrong to varying degrees. It should be funded to figure out exactly what is there. The ridicule should stop. At the very least this has been proven to be valid science. String theory has been valid as science and absorbed a lot of funding and many thousands of researchers, but there has been no promise of any practical result.

If this does result in practical power, I will be among those who will remind the Sharon Weinbergers of their role in surpressing valid science and whatever benefits result from the truth finally being encovered.

I already think that if you Sharon Begley are agreeing with the "level headed participants" that this is "unusual new physics". Then if it is unusual and new, then how do they know that it will not lead anywhere interesting or useful? It is new and unusual so they don't know. It is a prediction. Science is you make hypothesis and then you test it. You do not pre-judge the research before you do it. You can choose not to research it but once you say that it is unusual and new physics then it is valid and worthy of study and not ridiculed as fraud and error.

re: Cold Fusion at 20: Hope Springs Eternal

JedRothwell — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:22:16 GMT

You wrote that cold fusion, “was shown to be based on poor measurements, nonexistent controls and nutty theory.”

That is completely incorrect. First, cold fusion is an observation, not a theory. Second, the measurements were confirmed. By 1990, cold fusion was replicated well over 100 times. It was subsequently replicated thousands of times in over 200 major laboratories such as Los Alamos, China Lake, BARC and Mitsubishi. I have a collection of 1,200 mainstream peer-reviewed journal papers on cold fusion. I copied these papers from the libraries at Los Alamos and Georgia Tech. These journals and libraries do not have thousands of papers about “nutty theories” and the like.

Cold fusion has achieved temperatures and power density equal to a fission reactor core. Cold fusion cathodes the size of a coin have generated ~100 W in continuous reactions lasting 3 months. That is ~10,000 times more energy than any conceivable chemical reaction could produce from a device of this size. Reproducibility has been improved to 80 to 100%, depending on the technique. The reaction produces excess heat, helium commensurate with a plasma fusion reaction, tritium, x-rays and other nuclear products.

I have uploaded a bibliography of 3,500 papers on cold fusion, and 500 full text papers. See:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/

I urge you to read some of this scientific literature before making assertions about the research. You will see that your statements about “poor measurements, nonexistent controls” are baseless, nonsensical, malicious rumors. Scientific claims should be judged by replicated evidence published in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals, not by rumors.

re: Cold Fusion at 20: Hope Springs Eternal

lewisglarsen — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:16:56 GMT

Prof. Paul Padley's (Rice University) criticism of the Mosier-Boss work in a Houston Chronicle news story was correct: they failed to provide any believable theoretical explanation of how a fusion process could occur in condensed matter systems under such experimental conditions.

Further down below there are titles and URLs to our seven theoretical publications on LENRs, beginning with our peer-reviewed EPJC publication in March 2006. There are also links to six 'plain English' articles on LENRs that were published by I-SiS, as well as a public online MS-PowerPoint presentation that provides a concise high level historical and technical overview of LENRs as seen through the 'lens' of our theoretical work.

The Institute of Science in Society (I-SiS) is a nonprofit 'green' environmental organization headquartered in London, UK (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php ). Over the years, I-SiS has made notable contributions to efforts that aim to curtail the spread of genetically modified crops in Europe. Until recently, I-SiS (like Greenpeace) has also steadfastly opposed expanded use of nuclear (fission) power. However, after investigating LENRs in 2007, I-SiS changed its policy position on nuclear power. In fact, I-SiS now encourages commercial development and deployment of nuclear technology in the form of weak interaction LENRs (as opposed to strong interaction fission or fusion processes) as a truly 'green,' carbon-free nuclear energy technology.

In our theory, surmounting a high Coulomb barrier is a non-issue. As shown in our papers, LENRs in condensed matter systems do not involve any kind of Coulomb barrier-penetrating fusion, i.e., deuterium-deuterium, D-T, hot, "cold," warm, or otherwise. Furthermore, LENRs did not begin with Pons & Fleischmann in 1989 --- we have uncovered evidence in published peer-reviewed literature that heretofore unexplained, anomalous LENR-related phenomena have been seen episodically in certain types of experiments for at least 100 years.

None of our work includes the assumption of any new microscopic physics. What is novel about our new theoretical approach to LENRs is that, for the first time, we extend many-body collective effects to existing electroweak theory within the overall framework of the Standard Model. In a total of seven technical publications, we have developed a foundational theory of LENRs that weaves together all of the previously disparate threads of varied experimental evidence into a coherent whole. We have done so using rigorous, established, well-accepted physics.

In our view, the Widom-Larsen theory can explain all of the good experimental data in LENRs. Pons & Fleischmann were correct about excess heat being a real physical effect, albeit poorly reproducible because they were completely wrong on the underlying mechanism and had no appreciation whatsoever of crucial nanoscale device fabrication issues that are in the process of being solved by our company today. However, P&F were dead wrong about it being strong interaction, Coulomb barrier-penetrating D-D fusion that was producing the observed 'excess' heat. Unbeknownst to anyone back in 1989 and many people today, P&F's experimental results were actually the result of condensed matter collective effects and weak interactions.

Posted February 14, 2009 (24 slides):

http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llchigh-level-historical-and-technical-overview-of-lenrsfeb-14-2009

#1. November 13, 2008

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions for Green Energy -

How weak interactions can provide sustainable nuclear energy and revolutionize the energy industry

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LENRGE.php

#2. December 4, 2008

Widom-Larsen Theory Explains Low Energy Nuclear Reactions &Why They Are Safe and Green -

All down to collective effects and weak interactions

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Widom-Larsen.php

#3. December 10, 2008

Portable and Distributed Power Generation from LENRs -

Power output of LENR-based systems could be scaled up to address many different commercial applications

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/PortableDistributedPowerFromLENRs.php

#4. December 11, 2008

LENRs for Nuclear Waste Disposal -

How weak interactions can transform radioactive isotopes into more benign elements

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LENR_Nuclear_Waste_Disposal.php

#5. January 26, 2009

Safe, Less Costly Nuclear Reactor Decommissioning and More

How weak interaction LENRs can take us out of the nuclear safety and economic black hole

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/safeNuclearDecommissioning.php

#6. January 27, 2009

LENRs Replacing Coal for Distributed Democratized Power

Low energy nuclear reactions have the potential to provide distributed power generation with zero carbon emission and cheaper than coal

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LENRsReplacingCoal.php

******************* URLs to Technical Publications *************************

1. "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces", Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107 (2006 - arXiv in May 2005)

http://www.newenergytimes.com/Library/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf

2. "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" (Sept 2005) Widom and Larsen

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0509/0509269v1.pdf

3. "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" (Feb 2006) Widom and Larsen

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0602/0602472v1.pdf

4. "Theoretical Standard Model Rates of Proton to Neutron Conversions Near Metallic Hydride Surfaces" (Sep 2007) Widom and Larsen

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nucl-th/pdf/0608/0608059v2.pdf

5. "Energetic Electrons and Nuclear Transmutations in Exploding Wires" (Sept 2007) Widom, Srivastava, and Larsen

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0709.1222v1.pdf

6. "High Energy Particles in the Solar Corona" (April 2008) Widom, Srivastava, and Larsen

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.2647v1.pdf

7. "Primer for Electro-Weak Induced Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" (Oct 2008) Srivastava, Widom, and Larsen

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0810/0810.0159v1.pdf

re: Cold Fusion at 20: Hope Springs Eternal

JJ2000426 — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:53:12 GMT

The recent ACS report of the the Mosier-Boss work on LENR (Cold Fusion) is finally a definite proof that the Cold Fusion phenomena is real. No one disputed the detection of high energy neutron emission any more. Detection of neutron, mean while, is a clear indication that what's going on is NUCLEAR in nature, not anything else.

I want to remind people that a possible commercialization of Cold Fusion not only has huge implication to our energy future, but it has NATIONAL SECURITY implication as well. Tritium is shown to be produced in Cold Fusion experiments. Tritium is a critical thermonuclear material. You definitely do NOT want the technology to fall into the wrong hands. You must read this:

http://tinyurl.com/ddfdvy

Write to your elected politicians about this issue. Urge them to support LENR research, and prevent the technology from falling into the wrong hands.

re: Cold Fusion at 20: Hope Springs Eternal

WGUGLINSKI — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:48:56 GMT

Theoretically cold fusion is impossible according to the principles of Quantum Mechanics, the reason why the physicists refuse to accept the occurrence of the phenomenon.

The nuclear chemist Mitch Andre Garcia showed by very easy calculations that cold fusion occurrence is theoretically impossible, from the laws of Quantum Mechanics, in a Chemistry Blog where he is the administrator.

However cold fusion is theoretically impossible because Quantum Mechanics does not consider the zitterbewegung (zbw) as a helical trajectory of the electron (the zitterbewegung appears in the Dirac equation of the electron, but the quantum physicists did not interpret the zbw as a helical trajectory).

By interpreting the zitterbewegung from a new viewpoint, by considering it as a helical trajectory of the electron, cold fusion becomes theoreticall possible, as Guglinski has shown to Mitch Andre Garcia, along a discussion in the topic “THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COLD FUSION AND COLD FUSION”, which can be seen in the link:

http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0

Look at the Guglinski’s « Reply #8 on: September 24, 2007 ».

So the chemists are now getting knowledge that cold fusion is theoretically possible thanks to the adoption of the new interpretation for the zitterbewegung, and they are undertaking the performance of cold fusion experiments, because it seems that they dont trust in the viewpoint of the physicists.

Clearly, there is a dispute “CHEMISTS vs PHYSICISTS”, and it seems that the controversy on cold fusion will be finally resolved, but not by the physicists.

The new duel chemists vs physicists has ideological origin. The physicits keep their loyalty to Quantum Mechanics, because they dont accept to change their interpretation on the zitterbewegung, since such a changing requires a very deep modification in the foundations of Modern Physics (the zbw cannot be considered as a helical trajetory in Quantum Field Theory, which is the successor of Quantum Mechanics).

Unlike, the chemists keep their loyalty to the scientific method, according to which any experiment cannot be neglected only because it defies the principles of a theory, as happens now in this duel between Quantum Mechanics and cold fusion.

Such new participation of chemists is healthy to science’s develolpment. Because as the physicists have some dogmas which they consider unsourmantable (as for instance their interpretation of the zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory), the development of cold fusion requires scientists free of dogmas of Physics, as the chemists.

In few words, we have to consider the following situation:

1- as cold fusion is impossible by considering the interpretation of zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory...

2- ... but as the experiments prove that cold fusion really occurs, as confirmed now by the experiments made in the US Navy...

3- ... then there is need to change the interpretation on the zitterbewegung (a new alternative that chemists probably will take in consideration starting from now)...

4- ... instead of neglecting the cold fusion experiments (as the physicists insist to do).

re: Cold Fusion at 20: Hope Springs Eternal

WGUGLINSKI — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:50:59 GMT

Theoretically cold fusion is impossible according to the principles of Quantum Mechanics, the reason why the physicists refuse to accept the occurrence of the phenomenon.

http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0

Look at the Guglinski’s « Reply #8 on: September 24, 2007 ».

Clearly, there is a dispute “CHEMISTS vs PHYSICISTS”, and it seems that the controversy on cold fusion will be finally resolved, but not by the physicists.

In few words, we have to consider the following situation:

1- as cold fusion is impossible by considering the interpretation of zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory...

2- ... but as the experiments prove that cold fusion really occurs, as confirmed now by the experiments made in the US Navy...

3- ... then there is need to change the interpretation on the zitterbewegung (a new alternative that chemists probably will take in consideration starting from now)...

4- ... instead of neglecting the cold fusion experiments (as the physicists insist to do).