Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Robert George and Robert Godes of Brillouin Energy Announce Successful Cold Fusion Reactor
E-Cat World ^ | March 29, 2012 | Frank Acland

Posted on 03/30/2012 5:10:35 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog

James Martinez of Cash Flow Radio has conducted an interview with Brillouin Energy‘s Chief Executive Officer Robert George and President and Chief Technical Officer Robert E. Godes.

The reason they said they are ready to conduct an interview at this point (and not earlier) is because they have been able to develop a control system that allows a reaction to start and stop, and run in a steady state mode. They said that next month they will be working with Mike McKubre of SRI International to run a reactor at a higher temperature.

Godes states that the Brillouin’s reaction starts with an endothermic reaction (reaction that absorbs heat) and ends with a more powerful exothermic reaction (reaction releases heat). Brillouin is working on two systems, the first one provides heat at 140 degrees C, (called the “wet boiler”) the second one reaches 400 – 450 degrees C. George says that they have applied for patents, but have been told by a patent examiner at the US Patent Office that the office is still not permitted to grant patents in the cold fusion field.

Robert George said that financing has been difficult to obtain, and they are working towards securing a two million dollar investment. Their business plan is not to manufacture products, but to license technology to third party producers. George says that Brillouin has been receiving visits from a number of entities, including the Naval Research Lab and “major corporations.”

Godes expresses doubts about whether both Andrea Rossi and Defkalion actually have technology that is ready for the marketplace, but says he would like to see them succeed in order to bring recognition and acceptance to the field of cold fusion.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Science
KEYWORDS: coldfusion; energy; fission; fusion; lanr; lenr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-142 next last
To: Wonder Warthog

I am not a huckster...You have misstated my comments completely. What I have suggested is that the folks making grand claims of low temp low pressure fusion have yet to produce data was can be independently verified (including such things as reproducibility of the actual set up).

There have been continuous claims of “deliverables” on various dates which have come and gone.

And again I suggest simply that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That has not been resented. Will it ever be? who knows time will tell


51 posted on 04/02/2012 12:00:37 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Yup, but I got mine direct from the source. The banquet at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago was a lot of fun.

It's still weird that you had to pay for an award.

52 posted on 04/02/2012 6:48:29 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Heck, one NASA study replicated Palladium-deuterium gas loading excess heat with an off-the-shelf COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DEVICE (palladium membrane hydrogen purifier) by Fralick, et al, at NASA's Glenn Research Center IN 1989!!. The experiment is so simple and direct that it is virtually impossible that it was "wrong" somehow.

And yet after 20+ years, NASA isn't using this incredibly simple setup as an energy source.

that data was buried because of the fraudulent suppression of LANR by physicists incapable of doing electrochemistry correctly, and the continuing attacks on any funding and new research by certain parties like Parks and his coven.

Oh that's right, an agency of the most powerful government in the world is being blocked by a conspiracy of incompetents. No wonder you had to pay for your award.

53 posted on 04/02/2012 6:58:21 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
"Independent repeatability with an open flow of data is not what Rossi has provided. Nice try though."

I mentioned Rossi not at all. I was referring to LANR as a technology area. "Nice try, though".

"And by the by Feynman would have laughed at you... He is no doubt spinning in his grave"

LOL, and he'd probably whack YOU "upside the head". I'm advocating science, you're advocating pseudoscience.

"Atkinson and Houtermans and later Gamow and Teller used the Gamow factor to derive the rate at which nuclear reactions would proceed at the high temperatures believed to exist in the interiors of stars. The Gamow factor was needed in order to estimate how often two nuclei with the same sign of electrical charge would get close enough together to fuse and thereby generate energy according to Einstein’s relation between excess mass and energy release.”

Note bolding. In LANR, the situation is totally different. "Nice try, though". Try actually quoting experimental data...not theory.

I'll ask the simple question once again.....where are the LANR experiments incorrectly done and why is the data from same wrong. This is THE ONLY THING that counts. You can quote Gamow's THEORIES (who, like Feynmann, would likely join in with the head-slap) all you like.

"I am not a huckster...You have misstated my comments completely."

IMO, you are. I "mis-stated" nothing.

"What I have suggested is that the folks making grand claims of low temp low pressure fusion have yet to produce data was can be independently verified (including such things as reproducibility of the actual set up)."

Sorry, bubba....wrong. See Arata, Ahearn, and McKubre. But you're "read every report on cold fusion".......SUUURRRREE you have.

"There have been continuous claims of “deliverables” on various dates which have come and gone."

Irrelevant to the question of the scientific validity of LANR.

"And again I suggest simply that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That has not been resented. Will it ever be? who knows time will tell."

You can "suggest" all you like. The statement is bullshit. Real science requires no such thing. ONE well-documented study validating an experiment is sufficient. But every statement you have made proves you are NOT in any way familiar with the research in LANR, and especially the recent work.

54 posted on 04/02/2012 8:05:23 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"It's still weird that you had to pay for an award."

Oh, the plaque and banquet were free. I "did" have to pay for travel and hotel, though.

55 posted on 04/02/2012 8:11:04 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"And yet after 20+ years, NASA isn't using this incredibly simple setup as an energy source."

Well, the "simple setup" is not itself suitable as a power source....but it is MORE than sufficient to test whether LANR as a physical phenomenon exists or not. The key question is why was the data buried/ignored "for 20+ years". Note that in the study, the authors suggest a VERY innovative and simple approach to using their discovery to generate power. Yet that was not followed up on.

"Oh that's right, an agency of the most powerful government in the world is being blocked by a conspiracy of incompetents."

Hardly incompetents. Quite powerful people in the "hot physics" community were and are behind it. Denial of finding, denial of academic tenure, denial of publication by control of peer review. Well documented by Steve Krivit (since you appear to like his investigative reporting).

But, of course, you will continue in your state of willful ignorance, and not check any of this out for yourself.

56 posted on 04/02/2012 8:17:47 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
At this point, nobody knows how it works. There are conflicting theories. What matters is the replicated data done by different researchers....which absolutely exists.

At this point, what I want to see is for a cold fusion rig to operate for a week (hell, at this point I'll settle for 24 hours), at an independent location, monitored by an independent team who certifies substantial net energy output that exceeds any possible hidden internal fuel source.

57 posted on 04/02/2012 8:24:00 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
The key question is why was the data buried/ignored "for 20+ years". Note that in the study, the authors suggest a VERY innovative and simple approach to using their discovery to generate power. Yet that was not followed up on.

Well, what does that tell any reasonably sane person who doesn't resort to conspiracy theories? It says there's nothing there.

Fusion as a phenomenon by itself is no big deal. High school students have achieved it in their garages. Hot fusion gets attention because it's useful in addition to being supported by accepted theory. Hot fusion is used for weapons, and it's a natural process relevant to astrophysics and cosmology. So it should be no surprise to a rational person that hot fusion gets the most attention.

Then there is muon catalyzed cold fusion. It was predicted by theory before it was observed in nature and reproduced by experiments. However, muon fusion doesn't come close to producing as much energy as what goes into it. It's not as useful to physics as hot fusion, so once again, a rational person isn't surprised that it gets little attention.

Then there is all other claimed types of cold fusion (or LENR, or LANR, which are no more than the Shakespearean renamings of a stink bug). Cold fusion has no accepted theory that can withstand scrutiny. Even if the claimed anomalies are real, they are unpredictable, and thus not useful for commerce or any significant portion of science. We should see very few mentions of cold fusion compared to hot fusion. Yet on FR, thanks to the nutbag section (you and Kevmo) we see hundreds if not thousands of such postings. It makes conservatives look out of touch with reality and untrustworthy.

If there is one use for cold fusion, it is to provide a core for a mutual admiration society of washed up scientists, scammers, and crackpot wannabe victims who like to blame a conspiracies for their failures.

58 posted on 04/02/2012 11:12:29 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Interestingly enough you still cannot admit that perhaps you have been sold some snake oil.

Gamow’s work is currently used today for successful predictive work. It is based on real data and real science. Your initial comments were about how Gamo’s work was nothing but theory. When I show you otherwise then you say but but but.. Seems to me you are the only one inconsistent

You claim to have done work at and for LLNL. I seriously doubt it. Nothing in anything you have said would lead me to believe that they would consult with you on anything-—unless of course you are one of the GSE types.

Look fusion happens in nature... not at room temps but at high temps and high pressures. Most of all science is spent trying to understand these natural processes well enough to be make the predictions useable in everyday ways.

When you say quote experimental data I am not interested in calorimeter measurements since those may or may not be meaningful. What I would like the low energy fusion folks to do is show me where they have produced the gamma radiation that is a characteristic by product. There has been none.

You can suggest all you want to that the low energy folks have a new form of fusion... it has yet to be proven ( sorry you saying it has is not sufficient nor are articles showing up in reviews started by the very people claiming cold fusion.)

Where are the raw data from any of these experiments so they may be evaluated (as all good science is)? Where is the information about experimental set up which is sufficient to allow another to replicate the experiment?

Experiments which are temperamental and do not reliable happen even for the advocates of low energy fusion are not convincing.

Continue to post your stories. I am still waiting for deliverables


59 posted on 04/02/2012 9:29:45 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"Cold fusion has no accepted theory that can withstand scrutiny. Even if the claimed anomalies are real, they are unpredictable, and thus not useful for commerce or any significant portion of science.

I say again. Theory is irrelevant to the scientific validity of cold fusion. The ONLY necessary criterion is replicable data, which despite your assertions, IS available.

"We should see very few mentions of cold fusion compared to hot fusion. Yet on FR, thanks to the nutbag section (you and Kevmo) we see hundreds if not thousands of such postings. It makes conservatives look out of touch with reality and untrustworthy.

Perhaps there are so few mentions of hot fusion because it has been promising results for fifty years and not delivered. Kevmo and I happen to be interest in cold fusion. I'm also interested in and follow hot fusion as well....Bussard's legacy Polywell and Focus Fusion have some very promising possibilities. If you want articles on hot fusion...post'em. I suggest in future you simply ignore threads on cold fusion. We'd all be a lot happier.

60 posted on 04/03/2012 7:18:20 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
"Gamow’s work is currently used today for successful predictive work. It is based on real data and real science. Your initial comments were about how Gamo’s work was nothing but theory. When I show you otherwise then you say but but but.. Seems to me you are the only one inconsistent.

You just don't get it, do you. Sure, Gamow's work has been predictive, and will continue to be. So has and is Newton's. But there are areas where Newton's do not work. The same will prove to be true of Gamow's.

I suspect that in this big, wide universe, there will bethings discovered that will contradict even Einstein.

"You claim to have done work at and for LLNL. I seriously doubt it. Nothing in anything you have said would lead me to believe that they would consult with you on anything-—unless of course you are one of the GSE types."

I can guarantee you that I "did" both consult for and work with LLNL. Look up a guy named Fred Milanovich. At the start of the project, he was "head honcho" of the project area, though he retired in the middle of the work. Great guy. A REAL scientist.

"Look fusion happens in nature... not at room temps but at high temps and high pressures. Most of all science is spent trying to understand these natural processes well enough to be make the predictions useable in everyday ways."

And the same is true for the solid state and highly ordered systems, which behave very differently.

"When you say quote experimental data I am not interested in calorimeter measurements since those may or may not be meaningful. What I would like the low energy fusion folks to do is show me where they have produced the gamma radiation that is a characteristic by product. There has been none.

IOW, you'll ignore data that doesn't fit your prejudices instead of looking at all the data. That, old boy, is pseudoscience. And yes, gamma rays "have" been detected...just not in the quantities predicted by "standard hot fusion model physics". As have the reaction products and by products. But you're "read all the work publised on cold fusion".

"You can suggest all you want to that the low energy folks have a new form of fusion... it has yet to be proven ( sorry you saying it has is not sufficient nor are articles showing up in reviews started by the very people claiming cold fusion.)"

But you've read every paper published on cold fusion....NOT

With every comment here, you are proving that you have NOT done that.

"Where are the raw data from any of these experiments so they may be evaluated (as all good science is)? Where is the information about experimental set up which is sufficient to allow another to replicate the experiment?

In peer reviewed publications, of course. Many of these can be accessed through LENR-CANR.org. And likewise in the data books of those doing the research. To quote just one incident that is typical of how folks like you work. When Bockris first replicated Pons and Fleischmann's work back in the late 1980's (producing tritium), he invited other scientists to come to his lab and examine the process and the data......nobody took him up on it. They "just knew" it had to be wrong.

"Experiments which are temperamental and do not reliable happen even for the advocates of low energy fusion are not convincing."

Again, you show that you know virtually nothing about the recent advances in the field. The fact that the "advocates" are also publishing their negative results, IMO, goes a long way to prove their scientific credibility. It's what a GOOD scientist does. MUCH science has started out with very "temperamental" experiments. CF is following exactly the same progression.

61 posted on 04/03/2012 7:24:24 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Oh goody references to the bio sciences and spectroscopy... I am underwhelmed


62 posted on 04/03/2012 10:56:59 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
I say again. Theory is irrelevant to the scientific validity of cold fusion. The ONLY necessary criterion is replicable data, which despite your assertions, IS available.

Even if it's scientifically valid, it's also scientifically insignificant (not being supported by a valid theory is a big part of that). How good can the data be if an award winner like yourself can't make the case for cold fusion without looking like your hyping flying saucers?

Perhaps there are so few mentions of hot fusion because it has been promising results for fifty years and not delivered. Kevmo and I happen to be interest in cold fusion. I'm also interested in and follow hot fusion as well....Bussard's legacy Polywell and Focus Fusion have some very promising possibilities. If you want articles on hot fusion...post'em.

My point is that the cold fusion postings are grossly disproportionate to their scientific or commercial importance. They also sink to the level of promoting scams and making conservatives look bad, which is why challenging them is more important than making you and Kevmo happy.

63 posted on 04/03/2012 12:11:40 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog; Nifster
But you've read every paper published on cold fusion....NOT With every comment here, you are proving that you have NOT done that.

We also haven't read all the papers on the Loch Ness monster or flying saucers. If an award winner like yourself can't make the case for cold fusion based on the papers, why should we waste our time?

In peer reviewed publications, of course. Many of these can be accessed through LENR-CANR.org.

By peer you mean members of the cold fusion mutual admiration society. And sites like LENR-CANR were set up to publish all the cold fusion hype that respectable scientific journals won't publish. It's only one step up from Rossi's fake "peer reviewed" journal.

64 posted on 04/03/2012 12:28:07 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Thanks Moonman62. I forget that sometimes it hopeless to try and argue with the irrational.....

I almost got the feeling that it was like listening to Richard Hoagland explain his wonderful theories on 19.5 and NASA etc etc et


65 posted on 04/03/2012 8:16:25 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
"Oh goody references to the bio sciences and spectroscopy... I am underwhelmed"

Yup. I'm a chemist. And last time I looked, chemistry, biochemistry and spectroscopy were all fields of science, just as much so as physics. The fact remains that I DID precisely what I said, worked in and consulted with LLNL.

Here's some other items:

As a postdoc, I did a short project with Willard Libby. I assume you know who he is.

As an undergrad, I worked in a C-14 dating lab (NOT related to the project with Libby...that was a totally separate work (peer-review published, btw)).

My minor in Grad school was in Nuclear Science. So with that background I have a very good background in nuclear measurements.

MEASUREMENT is my area of expertise, and I'm damned good at it, having garnered two R&D100 awards for my work (actually one R&D100 and one IR100).

But the thing that makes me a scientist and you a joke is that I look at ALL the data, and not just what happens to fit my prejudices.

66 posted on 04/04/2012 5:24:01 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; Nifster
"Even if it's scientifically valid, it's also scientifically insignificant (not being supported by a valid theory is a big part of that). How good can the data be if an award winner like yourself can't make the case for cold fusion without looking like your hyping flying saucers?"

LOL. You're ridiculous. Nothing I have posted is even remotely like "hyping flying saucers". And if CF pans out as the latest data indicates, it will be the biggest scientific discovery since fire. But I guess you haven't bothered to look at Celani's talk at CERN, have you.

"My point is that the cold fusion postings are grossly disproportionate to their scientific or commercial importance. They also sink to the level of promoting scams and making conservatives look bad, which is why challenging them is more important than making you and Kevmo happy.

EVERYTHING that I have posted refers back to the best available data, INCLUDING the items about Rossi. Your only purpose is to stifle ANY positive discussion on LANR. Note that this thread has nothing to do with Rossi, and certainly can't be taken as "promoting scams".

And I fail to see how pointing people to where they can look at the facts themselves can possibly "make conservatives look bad".

"We also haven't read all the papers on the Loch Ness monster or flying saucers. If an award winner like yourself can't make the case for cold fusion based on the papers, why should we waste our time?

I've referred you to LENR-CANR repeatedly. I have no idea which sources you might have access to, or which journal(s) you accept as having the best peer-review.

"By peer you mean members of the cold fusion mutual admiration society. And sites like LENR-CANR were set up to publish all the cold fusion hype that respectable scientific journals won't publish. It's only one step up from Rossi's fake "peer reviewed" journal.

Which statement tells me that you have never examined the contents of the LENR-CANR library section. There are plenty of peer-reviewed journals cited there. They are specifically identified as such. And LENR-CANR "also" contains negative papers.

I'll make a guess....the only journals you and "Nifster" will accept as "adequate" are those that refuse to accept CF papers. Talk about "Catch-22".

67 posted on 04/04/2012 5:28:33 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Looking at bad data or data based on flawed theories is in fact meaningless.

You do not have the slightest clue on what fusion is about——’cold’ ‘hot’ or any other kind.

I suggest you perhaps fit into to R.C. Hoagland model of science.

Call names all you want. The cold fusion people still have not produced what they said years ago would be available in six months. IF they ever do then we can have a discussion


68 posted on 04/04/2012 5:54:23 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
LOL. You're ridiculous. Nothing I have posted is even remotely like "hyping flying saucers".

You say this on a thread you posted, based on an article from a blog dedicated to the scammer and convict, Andrea Rossi.

And if CF pans out as the latest data indicates, it will be the biggest scientific discovery since fire.

So would flying saucers with all their wonderful alien technology.

But I guess you haven't bothered to look at Celani's talk at CERN, have you.

That's part of a lecture series designed to entertain the janitors and secretaries who work at CERN. Why should I read it? Once again you are placing the burden of proving or disproving cold fusion on the people you are trying to convince, rather than using your own award winning talent to make the case. It's rather devious of you.

69 posted on 04/04/2012 1:47:22 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
EVERYTHING that I have posted refers back to the best available data, INCLUDING the items about Rossi.

That's like referring to the best avilable fish head in a bucket of chum.

Your only purpose is to stifle ANY positive discussion on LANR.

Not at all. It took very little to convince me that muon catalyzed cold fusion is real or that high school students created hot fusion in their garages. That's because the quality of data is so good and convincing. The stuff you post is hype and emphasizes quantity, rather than quality.

Note that this thread has nothing to do with Rossi, and certainly can't be taken as "promoting scams".

Note that the article you posted is copied from a blog called E-Cat World. E-Cat being Rossi's latest scam. The article also mentions Rossi.

70 posted on 04/04/2012 2:27:54 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog; Nifster
I've referred you to LENR-CANR repeatedly. I have no idea which sources you might have access to, or which journal(s) you accept as having the best peer-review.

Which statement tells me that you have never examined the contents of the LENR-CANR library section. There are plenty of peer-reviewed journals cited there. They are specifically identified as such. And LENR-CANR "also" contains negative papers.

I went over to LENR-CANR.org to find its peer review process. I couldn't find it. What I did find is that LENR-CANR.org is a Wordpress blog on cold fusion run by Jed Rothwell. So I was wrong, LENR-CANR.org is no better than Rossi's fake journal blog.

And since you are so big on credentials, what kind of credentials does Jed Rothwell have?

71 posted on 04/04/2012 9:47:51 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog; Nifster
I'll make a guess....the only journals you and "Nifster" will accept as "adequate" are those that refuse to accept CF papers.

A "journal" that's something more than a blog would be a start, which would be a monumental leap in your case.

72 posted on 04/04/2012 9:52:12 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
"Looking at bad data or data based on flawed theories is in fact meaningless."

Ludicrous. I've got more than enough experience in practicing science to understand whether or not data is good or bad. Theory has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

"You do not have the slightest clue on what fusion is about——’cold’ ‘hot’ or any other kind."

Again ludicrous. Since I've followed fusion research of all flavors for 45 years, I think I have a reasonable idea of what it's about.

"I suggest you perhaps fit into to R.C. Hoagland model of science."

I have no clue who "R.C. Hoagland" might be. And the approach to science I am advoctating is completely orthodox....that is, experiment confirms the validity of theory (and not the reverse). Apparently, Julian Schwinger was right.....physics HAS forgotten that it is an experimental science.

"Call names all you want. The cold fusion people still have not produced what they said years ago would be available in six months. IF they ever do then we can have a discussion.

LOL, you and "Moonboy" have done nothing BUT call names. Not one shred of actual science in any of your responses. As to the "cold fusion people" not delivering.....neither have the "hot fusion people". And the time interval has been a lot longer.

73 posted on 04/05/2012 3:48:10 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"I went over to LENR-CANR.org to find its peer review process. I couldn't find it. What I did find is that LENR-CANR.org is a Wordpress blog on cold fusion run by Jed Rothwell. So I was wrong, LENR-CANR.org is no better than Rossi's fake journal blog."

LOL. You are SUCH a liar. LENR-CANR makes no claim to being a science journal of any sort. It is wholly a compilation of references to papers published on the topic of cold fusion. Peer review of those papers is done by the source journal. No different from "Current Contents" to cite just one example of many such collections that focus on specific areas of science and technology.

But frankly, I doubt that you even set click on LENR-CANR.

74 posted on 04/05/2012 3:54:57 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Photobucket

I see the cold fusion circus is still in town.
75 posted on 04/05/2012 4:04:18 AM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 ! We should take off and Newt washington from orbit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62; Wonder Warthog

Warthog is too funny. He defines an acceptable journal as one that prints what he wants. I know plenty of ‘acceptable’ journals that won’t print all sorts of papers. Sometimes it is because the focus is different than what the journal focusses on. Sometimes it is because perpetual motion machines are thought to be in violation of fundamental laws of physics. That’s the way it goes.

At one point CF had the potential to be presented but since the results in the 1990s everyone has steered clear. Every now and then it is reviewed again only to come to the same conclusion (eg the Naval RResearch review in 2004-— or there abouts)-— CF represents a field that has touchy experiements with inconsistent history of repeatability.


76 posted on 04/05/2012 5:51:31 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

The hot fusion people have not made the claims that the CFers have. They have steadily built their knowledge base.

Theory has everything to do with how one views data. If one ignores the double slit experiment (for example) then light and its travel becomes very troublesome and confusing. If one does not understand nonlocal interaction then spooky action at a distance leaves one with all sorts of unexplained data.

Go back to your spectroscopy. It is where you are best suited to make evaluations


77 posted on 04/05/2012 5:55:09 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

I admit that I jumped to the conclusion that LENR-CANR.org was something more than a Wordpress blog run by one person with no scientific credentials.


78 posted on 04/05/2012 9:28:19 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
"Warthog is too funny. He defines an acceptable journal as one that prints what he wants. I know plenty of ‘acceptable’ journals that won’t print all sorts of papers. Sometimes it is because the focus is different than what the journal focusses on. Sometimes it is because perpetual motion machines are thought to be in violation of fundamental laws of physics. That’s the way it goes."

Methinks you have the case exactly backwards. I look at ALL the data, from whatever source, and judge it both as to source and the quality of the data itself. You, OTOH, choose to do precisely what you accuse me of, giving sole credence to journals that refuse to publish good-quality papers just because the subject is "not in the mainstream".

Note that the journals you choose CENSORED a Nobel-laureate theoretical physicist (Julian Schwinger) because he wanted to publish theoretical works on CF. I would think that a scientist of Schwinger's capabilities would be worth hearing out, no matter what the area of science or technology.

"At one point CF had the potential to be presented but since the results in the 1990s everyone has steered clear. Every now and then it is reviewed again only to come to the same conclusion (eg the Naval Research review in 2004-— or there abouts)-— CF represents a field that has touchy experiments with inconsistent history of repeatability.

Up to 2004, you're right, because at that point virtually all CF attempts focused on electrochemical loading. The electrochemical loading method is fraught with major difficulties (as a chemist, I probably understand that better than you do.....I "hate" electrochemistry....virtually all its techniques are "touchy...with...inconsistent....repeatability). But that changed with the onset of gas loading approaches, first (but not really...see below) by Arata in Japan, and later by others, including several groups here in the US.

As I have studied this, one of the major missed opportunities was the very, very simple/cheap experiments done at NASA's Glenn Research Center....in 1989! Due to the cyclonic shit-storm generated by the hot physics community, that got shelved and went unreported. Thanks to Rossi (real or fake as he may be), that information has now gotten out..and been reproduced (at least by the folks at Glenn (they repeated the test recently and got the same results).

THAT particular experiment can be replicated with totally off-the-shelf and relatively inexpensive hardware.

Now maybe you know of actual experiments that disprove the NASA approach, but I have found none.

79 posted on 04/06/2012 6:30:33 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
"Theory has everything to do with how one views data. If one ignores the double slit experiment (for example) then light and its travel becomes very troublesome and confusing. If one does not understand nonlocal interaction then spooky action at a distance leaves one with all sorts of unexplained data.

Wrong. Theory is all well and good, and if experiments agree with it, that "does" add to the knowledge base of science. But ignoring "anomalies" that contradict theory is flatly stupid, because it is from those anomalous results that NEW and unexpected science emerges. Most of them will indeed probably prove to be errors, but those that pan out with replicable data open up new theories (and occasionally kill old ones).

"Go back to your spectroscopy. It is where you are best suited to make evaluations..."

LOL....any place a measurement is made is grist for my mill (and not just spectroscopy....neither of my R&D100 awards were in spectroscopy...nor were they in the same area of applied science).

80 posted on 04/06/2012 6:39:19 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R
"I see the cold fusion circus is still in town."

And will continue to be, as I find interesting results.

81 posted on 04/06/2012 6:40:25 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
And will continue to be, as I find interesting results.

I'm glad it gives you something to do with your time.
82 posted on 04/06/2012 6:45:08 AM PDT by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 ! We should take off and Newt washington from orbit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
As I have studied this, one of the major missed opportunities was the very, very simple/cheap experiments done at NASA's Glenn Research Center....in 1989! Due to the cyclonic shit-storm generated by the hot physics community, that got shelved and went unreported. Thanks to Rossi (real or fake as he may be), that information has now gotten out..and been reproduced (at least by the folks at Glenn (they repeated the test recently and got the same results).

You finally say something interesting and then ruin it by mentioning conspiracy and Rossi in the same paragraph.

So what's the source for this latest experiment? It's too bad you can't use your award winning talent to summarize it here.

83 posted on 04/06/2012 11:08:02 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"You finally say something interesting and then ruin it by mentioning conspiracy and Rossi in the same paragraph."

Do you begin to realize how stupid that statement is. You seem to think that the word "Rossi" possesses some magical power to discredit any and all other items among which it might occur.

"So what's the source for this latest experiment? It's too bad you can't use your award winning talent to summarize it here."

Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, I see. Note the phrase "NASA Glenn Research Center" in my post. I would think that pretty much anybody could do a search with terms "cold fusion" and "NASA Glenn Research Center".

But since you are either incapable or terminally lazy, here is the url:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf

Note that I have already provided the link above in the CF thread I posted just before this one.

84 posted on 04/07/2012 6:36:32 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Once again, you choose to insult rather than make the case for cold fusion in your own words. What does that tell us about your confidence?


85 posted on 04/07/2012 9:28:40 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Looking at the referenced presentation, here's what I see. A palladium-silver hydrogen purifier is heated to about 360C (page 12). There is no temperature anomaly when hydrogen or deuterium is pumped into the purifier. There is a brief and small 15C temperature differential spike when deuterium is pumped out of the purifier compared to when hydrogen is pumped out of the purifier (page 13). No neutron or gamma radiation was detected for either hydrogen or deuterium. No control experiments were run.

How could this tiny and brief temperature increase possibly be used to power a spacecraft or anything else? (It's not continuous, but only when deuterium is first pumped out.) I guarantee this experiment wasn't suppressed by a conspiracy. The hot fusion guys were probably laughing too hard to care.

86 posted on 04/07/2012 5:13:18 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"Once again, you choose to insult rather than make the case for cold fusion in your own words. What does that tell us about your confidence?"

ROFLMAO. Look in a mirror, buddy. I'm just returning the "favor" you've given for the last year.

87 posted on 04/08/2012 5:10:17 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"No control experiments were run."

What do you think the hydrogen runs are???

"How could this tiny and brief temperature increase possibly be used to power a spacecraft or anything else? (It's not continuous, but only when deuterium is first pumped out.) I guarantee this experiment wasn't suppressed by a conspiracy. The hot fusion guys were probably laughing too hard to care."

The question at this point is "does cold fusion exist at all". This very simply and easily replicable experiment answers that question once and for all, and in the affirmative. Next question....can it be scaled up. This is currently being answered. Celani's latest data is showing 1800 watts/gram for Ni/H and 400 watts/gram for Pd/D. But I'm sure you didn't bother to watch his presentation, since it was only for janitors and other cleaning personnel.

As to how, I thought the "Stirling engine" design proposed in the same set of slides was a very elegant approach to doing precisely what was needed to harness the effect.

And I expect the "hot physicists" are filling their underwear as the data mounts. I wondered why Obama was planning to cancel the "hot physics" fusion effort at MIT.

88 posted on 04/08/2012 5:21:45 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
"No control experiments were run."

What do you think the hydrogen runs are???

A possible source of contamination. At the very least they should have run the deuterium through a pristine purifier. Likewise they should have captured the purified deuterium and run it through the purifier again for several runs to see if the effect was maintained. Analysis of the gas before and after, likewise would have been helpful.

But not doing any of those checks and controls is why looking for nothing more than an anomalous effect and then running off to report it to an eager audience of crackpots is bad science. It's too bad NASA promotes and funds such activity in order to get some cheap attention.

89 posted on 04/08/2012 8:48:00 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Celani's latest data is showing 1800 watts/gram for Ni/H and 400 watts/gram for Pd/D. But I'm sure you didn't bother to watch his presentation, since it was only for janitors and other cleaning personnel.

Wonder Warthog regurgitates what Celani said to an audience of janitors and secretaries during their lunch break. Why don't you explain in your own words why Celani's claims are true and significant?

90 posted on 04/08/2012 8:55:51 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
As to how, I thought the "Stirling engine" design proposed in the same set of slides was a very elegant approach to doing precisely what was needed to harness the effect.

What's going to be used to heat the palladium to 360C? What will power the Stirling engine during the majority of the time when there is no effect?

91 posted on 04/08/2012 8:59:16 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"A possible source of contamination. At the very least they should have run the deuterium through a pristine purifier. Likewise they should have captured the purified deuterium and run it through the purifier again for several runs to see if the effect was maintained. Analysis of the gas before and after, likewise would have been helpful."

Lordy, but you're getting desperate. Any reasonably experienced scientist, working with such a system, would do a series of runs, starting with hydrogen (or deuterium), and cycling through a time series of compressions and extractions as the gas changes from one state to the other, until the system re-equilibrates under the new conditions.

"But not doing any of those checks and controls is why looking for nothing more than an anomalous effect and then running off to report it to an eager audience of crackpots is bad science. It's too bad NASA promotes and funds such activity in order to get some cheap attention.

More desperation. These are slides from a talk, which, as with any such, hits the high points, and leaves out much of the gory detail. There "is" a NASA report, which I assume can be gotten from NASA. I'm not sure if that only covers the 1989 work, or if it includes both the 1989 and the 2009 work, and very likely includes those gory details. I am probably going to see if I can get a copy.

92 posted on 04/09/2012 5:05:12 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"Wonder Warthog regurgitates what Celani said to an audience of janitors and secretaries during their lunch break. Why don't you explain in your own words why Celani's claims are true and significant?"

Having watched the video presentations (have you.....I doubt it), I didn't see any janitors and secretaries. Most of the folks visible on camera looked like a typical mix of technical people who would attend such a talk. Been there, done that, from both sides of the podium.

As to "explaining in my own words why Celani's claims are true and significant", that would be because it is 1) a summary of experimental data, 2) by a highly respected physicist, 3) who is not trying to "make a killing" by starting a cold fusion business. Does it need to be replicated.....yes......and I am sure that Celani will see that it is.

But I see you have re-descended to your typical insulting behavior. Just can't stay out of the gutter for more than 30 seconds, can you?

93 posted on 04/09/2012 5:11:21 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"What's going to be used to heat the palladium to 360C? What will power the Stirling engine during the majority of the time when there is no effect?"

A storage battery, of course.....just like your car (or, more precisely, like a Diesel truck). And you are ASSUMING that "during the majority of the time...there is no effect".

I suspect that during a "startup cycle" that they will run the Stirling generator "backwards" giving alternating pressure waves from the driven piston, while simultaneously heating the active fuel area with a resistance element.

I guess you "failed to see" the slide that indicates the groups plans to actually RUN a Stirling engine test bed with the CF power source.

94 posted on 04/09/2012 5:19:25 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc; citizen; Liberty1970; Red Badger; Wonder Warthog; PA Engineer; glock rocks; free_life; ..

The Cold Fusion Ping List

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles


95 posted on 04/09/2012 4:40:49 PM PDT by Kevmo (If you can define a man by the depravity of his enemies, Rick Santorum must be a noble soul indeed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Any reasonably experienced scientist, working with such a system, would do a series of runs, starting with hydrogen (or deuterium), and cycling through a time series of compressions and extractions as the gas changes from one state to the other, until the system re-equilibrates under the new conditions.

But this is cold fusion. All they have to do is get a tiny, brief unexplainable effect and then run off to do a press release for the cold fusion fan boys.

More desperation. These are slides from a talk, which, as with any such, hits the high points, and leaves out much of the gory detail.

So good science to you is gory details, which in this case are absent. Is it any wonder you are having trouble convincing anyone who isn't gullible?

And while this isn't a real scientific paper, it's the reference you provided.

96 posted on 04/09/2012 5:53:10 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
As to "explaining in my own words why Celani's claims are true and significant", that would be because it is 1) a summary of experimental data, 2) by a highly respected physicist, 3) who is not trying to "make a killing" by starting a cold fusion business. Does it need to be replicated.....yes......and I am sure that Celani will see that it is.

"Celani says" and "I trust Celani" summarizes your entire argument in your own words. I thought you could do better with your award winning talent. I have to admit that I'm wrong again.

I thought maybe you could explain why the data is valid. Just having data and making a claim isn't enough.

97 posted on 04/09/2012 6:46:27 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

“Oh that’s right, an agency of the most powerful government in the world is being blocked by a conspiracy of incompetents.”

There’s nothing about our government and it’s agencies that’s not incompetent...


98 posted on 04/09/2012 8:49:42 PM PDT by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"So good science to you is gory details, which in this case are absent. Is it any wonder you are having trouble convincing anyone who isn't gullible? And while this isn't a real scientific paper, it's the reference you provided.

Science absolutely is the "gory details". What, you think it's "all about theory"??

Yes, it "is" the reference I provided, which is a summary (equivalent to an abstract of a full paper). You apparently choose to ignore the OTHER reference (to the full report on the work), which I am currently trying to locate. The number of that report is appended to the slides.

99 posted on 04/10/2012 4:44:46 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Science absolutely is the "gory details". What, you think it's "all about theory"??

I think the burden is on you to show that your promotion of cold fusion is more than hype. You're the one who is leaving out the "gory details" (your words), or any convincing logical case for cold fusion based on them. Repeating claims of people you trust because they are claiming what you want to hear, and putting the burden of research on those you are trying to convince is nothing more than hype.

You apparently choose to ignore the OTHER reference (to the full report on the work), which I am currently trying to locate. The number of that report is appended to the slides.

How can I not help but "ignore" it when even you are having a hard time locating it?

100 posted on 04/10/2012 6:50:23 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-142 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson