Posted on 03/30/2012 5:10:35 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
LOL. I haven't even started to look for it yet. There is this thing called "work" that one does..you might be acquainted with it. But the reference to the report is there....nothing is stopping you from doing a Google search for it, now is there.
You’re the one hyping cold fusion without anything substantial to back it up, other than telling us that someone, somewhere is making a claim that Wonder Warthog accepts without question.
Since you refuse to check out suggested sources, how would you know whether I had "anything substantial" or not??
But, I did do the Google search for Fralicks report. It took a whole minute to find the reference. It can be found here:
http://ecatsite.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/nasa_1989.pdf
And the relevant information to prove that contamination was not a possible source of error...."a final fill of hydrogen or deuterium was preceded by filling and pumping three times". Any analytical chemist (like me) will tell you that a 3X "empty and fill" cycle reduces potential contamination by 99.99% or so.
But I suggest reading the whole report (I know you won't bother, but I'll suggest it anyway). It is a real shame that this quite substantial proof of excess heat without neutrons wasn't followed up. It presaged the later work of Arata in 1992-2001 and would have given the US a head-start on a new clean energy source.
Speaking of Arata. Here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39624711/Yoshiaki-Arata-Paper-on-Cold-Fusion
is an interesting paper honoring his memory after his death. Lots of very good details about his cold fusion work collected in one place.
Since you’re apparently terminally lazy, here are “clickables” to get you to the sources above:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39624711/Yoshiaki-Arata-Paper-on-Cold-Fusion
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39624711/Yoshiaki-Arata-Paper-on-Cold-Fusion
Oh my gosh. That's nothing more than a story being told by a third party about someone else making cold fusion claims. I'm mad at myself again for giving you too much credit, even though I wasn't giving you that much credit in the first place.
“That’s nothing more than a story being told by a third party about someone else making cold fusion claims. I’m mad at myself again for giving you too much credit, even though I wasn’t giving you that much credit in the first place.”
My error. There were supposed to be two different “clickable” links. But evidently I was right in that you were too lazy to cut and paste the other link. So here it is:
http://ecatsite.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/nasa_1989.pdf
The Arata link was a freebie I found while looking up the NASA stuff. But the information there provides an excellent summary of the work Arata did in researching CF. The “gory details” ARE available (notably the references at the end of the linked document), but also from LENR/CANR.org:
This is particularly interesting:
http://ecatsite.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/nasa_1989.pdf
First, let me say what a pleasure it is to read something from NASA from a time when they valued quality rather than hype. This 1989 reference is a technical memo. It's not a formal scientific document that's been suppressed for over 20 years. The authors made it clear that they were attempting to detect excess neutrons, which they didn't. They said their result was negative and that was that.
For the benefit of those who do not wish to read further, we state that our neutron---detector counts for palladium in vacuum, palladium in deuterium, and palladium in hydrogen did not differ significantly and we were unable to detect evidence of the second reaction.They didn't make any hyped up claims saying they could use the small amount of heat as an energy source. They simply said it was a mystery. Neither did they recommend further testing. The authors seemed unimpressed with the results. The memo was unclassified. Why in the world would anybody suppress such a mundane memo that claimed a negative result?
•More loading/unloading data on the temperature evolution of the loading/unloading process should be collectedIt's clear they aren't claiming nuclear reactions as a source for the heat yet, but are recommending good tests to find out whether it is. So if this is so important why haven't these recommended tests been carried out yet?•Analysis of the gas samples collected should be performed to look for evidence of tritium or helium
–Mass spectrum analysis and optical emission spectrum analysis should be able to identify gas species in the samples
–Existence of either in the sample would indicate a nuclear origin for the anomalous heating
•Further examination of the thermodynamics of hydrogen absorption in palladium should be pursued to fully quantify the extent of the observed heating effects
•Improve experiment controls:
–Upgrade Purifier heater control
–Improve loading/unloading process timing
–Fabricate in-house palladium samples
–Improve neutron and gamma radiation detection
You totally miss the significance (probably deliberately), both past and present. Past....this is a completely unambiguous PROOF that cold fusion is real (of course, that is also true of the present). If followed up on, the field would probably be ten years ahead of where it is today. The reason it was not followed up on is the "groupthink suppression" of the idea that you could have CF without neutrons. Present....this report is a completely unbiased proof that CF is real. The fact that the authors bought into the "groupthink" and thought the experiment was a failure is proof of a lack of bias in favor of CR.
There are still a lot of physicists today that are victims or promulgators of the "groupthink meme". And there is no doubt whatsoever that there is a group of people who work behind the scenes to prevent funding of CF research, prevent promotion (or, if possible, promote the termination) of researchers engaged or interested in CF work.
Yes, this "is" a "technical memo" (or internal research report). I've read (and written) more of these than I care to think about and am still doing so. That doesn't invalidate the scientific content.
Uh, this is precisely the set of slides that I posted a link to in a previous thread.
"It's clear they aren't claiming nuclear reactions as a source for the heat yet, but are recommending good tests to find out whether it is."
The results of which "good tests" already exist, having been done by other CF researchers. It certainly can't hurt to gather more data on this specific implementation.
"So if this is so important why haven't these recommended tests been carried out yet?"
Good question. Anybody with two brain cells understands the importance of a clean, compact energy source. See previous discussion about "groupthink" and active prevention of funding. I know you don't believe that exists, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Yet, in spite of a certain Nobel prize, numerous other awards and mountains of money for the authors, neither memo makes that claim. They didn't even bother to publish real papers in real journals.
You totally miss the significance (probably deliberately), both past and present. Past....this is a completely unambiguous PROOF that cold fusion is real (of course, that is also true of the present). If followed up on, the field would probably be ten years ahead of where it is today. The reason it was not followed up on is the "groupthink suppression" of the idea that you could have CF without neutrons. Present....this report is a completely unbiased proof that CF is real. The fact that the authors bought into the "groupthink" and thought the experiment was a failure is proof of a lack of bias in favor of CR.
The authors of the 1989 memo are much more logical, scientific and well spoken than you, yet I'm to believe they are the victims of groupthink, rather than you. The 2009 memo isn't nearly as professional, but it's still way ahead of anything you've put out here on FR. If anybody's the victim of groupthink, you are.
Yes, this "is" a "technical memo" (or internal research report). I've read (and written) more of these than I care to think about and am still doing so. That doesn't invalidate the scientific content.
The scientific content is summed up by a small and brief temperature anomaly during an informal experiment. The authors make no claim that it's any kind of fusion, yet I'm supposed to believe it is, based on nothing more than "Warthog says so," and Warthog's nutty groupthink/conspiracy delusions.
Yes, but that doesn't mean cold fusion (other than muon) exists, or if it does, that it would be useful as an energy source.
See previous discussion about "groupthink" and active prevention of funding.
All they need is a hydrogen purifier, some deuterium, and a mass spectrometer. I don't think your paranoid groupthink/conspiracy theory could prevent everybody in the world from coming up with that stuff for over 20 years.
I know you don't believe that exists, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
No evidence except "Warthog says so."
But his hypothesis is they are testing only the first FUSION stage of a two stage bomb.
My question has been 'what if all they have is the first stage and they are not using the same process as others"? This could be an LENR bomb.
“All they need is a hydrogen purifier, some deuterium, and a mass spectrometer. I don’t think your paranoid groupthink/conspiracy theory could prevent everybody in the world from coming up with that stuff for over 20 years.”
Apparently it did, because I have yet to see any CF experiment that used the same approach. Yet many researchers tried many other (and much more difficult) methodologies. Why is that??? If this supremely simply experimental approach had been published in the literature, it would have been attempted by dozens, if not hundreds of labs. Note that even Celani was surprised by their findings and thought them important.
And I suspect that now that the “palladium purifier” approach has become somewhat more widely known, that many individuals and groups will try it.
“No evidence except “Warthog says so.”
What you actually mean is “Moonman62” refuses to look at the evidence. Here’s a clue....you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “I can’t hear you” doesn’t make the evidence go away.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html
Try this link. I think this particular victim of the fact of suppression is sufficiently credible.
I have to say, I have found you to be by far the most intellectually dishonest person I’ve ever contended with on FR.
Why is it that common employees at NASA were able to think of this "supremely simple" experiment within a few months of the Fleischmann and Pons announcement, yet no one else in the world has thought of it in the 20+ years since?
And I suspect that now that the “palladium purifier” approach has become somewhat more widely known, that many individuals and groups will try it.
It's been almost 3 years since the 2009 memo. Yawn and snore.
What you actually mean is “Moonman62” refuses to look at the evidence. Here’s a clue....you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “I can’t hear you” doesn’t make the evidence go away.
If you go back and look at this thread, you'll see that I'm the only one listening to your so called evidence, and making the effort to turn it into something comprehensible. You should be more appreciative.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html
Try this link. I think this particular victim of the fact of suppression is sufficiently credible.
It felt so strange going to an online magazine called Infinite Energy to read a rant given by someone who was dead at the time. Anyway, it's a shame he couldn't get to the point in 200 words or less and say his theory was cold fusion was caused by deuterium reacting with hydrogen contamination. Even someone who is as stupid as me (for listening to you) can think of an easy test. Repeat the "supremely simple" NASA experiment, and introduce varying amounts of hydrogen gas into the deuterium to see what effect it has on the brief temperature anomaly, and look for the Helium 3 product.
I expect my share of the Nobel prize for suggesting it.
Good question. Perhaps the fact that it was never published or publicized widely has something to do with it.
"It's been almost 3 years since the 2009 memo. Yawn and snore.
Again a case of failure to publicize. Why is that?
"If you go back and look at this thread, you'll see that I'm the only one listening to your so called evidence, and making the effort to turn it into something comprehensible. You should be more appreciative.
Oh, I suspect there are some lurkers out there as well.
"It felt so strange going to an online magazine called Infinite Energy to read a rant given by someone who was dead at the time. Anyway, it's a shame he couldn't get to the point in 200 words or less and say his theory was cold fusion was caused by deuterium reacting with hydrogen contamination.
So, a Nobel Laureate and expert in quantum solid state physics tries to publish theory papers on cold fusion, is stifled, presents the evidence for being stifled, and all you see is "a dead guy" who was only talking about deuterium reacting with hydrogen.
See my previous point about your lack of intellectual honesty.
"Even someone who is as stupid as me (for listening to you) can think of an easy test. Repeat the "supremely simple" NASA experiment, and introduce varying amounts of hydrogen gas into the deuterium to see what effect it has on the brief temperature anomaly, and look for the Helium 3 product."
WOW! What an exercise in post-facto logic. Perhaps if Scwhinger had known about the NASA experiment back in 1989, he would have fostered doing just that. But now that Celani HAS seen that the technique HAS been widely publicized, you can bet that the approach WILL be re-tested. It will be interesting to see if a "mainstream science" publication is willing to then publish the results.
There is no proof for cold fusion (other than muon), in spite of easy experiments that would do so. Your links to Ecat blogs and Infinite Energy magazine are not evidence or proof. The two NASA memos do tend to support a small and brief temperature anomaly that couldn't power a popcorn fart. That's it. That's all you have other than your delusional conspiracy theory.
Of course he knew about "palladium and deuterium" IN ELECTROCHEMICAL SYSTEMS.
NOT GAS LOADED. There "is" just a slight difference.
"The fact that the NASA people chose not to publish didn't prevent him from knowing that. Anybody with brains and resources available to anyone at a university, government science agency, large corporation, foreign government, or inventor with a few bucks could have tested Schwinger's theory with a simple experiment. They've had 18 years to do it, and have failed to do so."
You've got it exactly backwards. I don't know if your obfuscation is deliberate (probably) or just due to general stupidity. The very simple GAS LOADING experiment done by NASA was NOT known even to the general CF community, much less the wider science community.
"There is no proof for cold fusion (other than muon), in spite of easy experiments that would do so. Your links to Ecat blogs and Infinite Energy magazine are not evidence or proof. The two NASA memos do tend to support a small and brief temperature anomaly that couldn't power a popcorn fart. That's it. That's all you have other than your delusional conspiracy theory."
The fact that you refuse to look at the data doesn't make it go away. I've pointed out quite a few things other than "Ecat blogs" ane "Infinite Energy" magazine over the past year.
You want proof:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_2_storms.pdf
http://home.netcom.com/~storms2/review3.html
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/storms/review8.html
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEwhatisnowk.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/9522x473v80352w9/
Storms have covered the research done in CF exhaustively, including links to many replications. In fact, it turns out that the Japanese independently discovered the NASA “simple gas loading” experiment. So, depending on who you choose as “first to publish”, even that has been replicated.
have -—— should be “has”
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.