Posted on 11/26/2013 2:38:27 PM PST by Kevmo
“Cold Nuclear Fusion” at RASA
Edward Tsyganov of Cold Fusion Power
Edward Tsyganov of Cold Fusion Power, International and OSNovation Systems, Inc. presents Cold Nuclear Fusion at RASA. Edward Tsyganov forwards a report Cold Nuclear Fusion on his research presented at the Russian-speaking Academic Science Association (RASA) meeting held 8-10 November 2013, Clearwater Beach, FL.
RASA: Cold Nuclear Fusion presentation .pdf slides [5.5M]
Currently, humanity has reached a stage of development at which the struggle for energy resources is particularly important, because all the known sources of energy in the near future will not be able to provide our needs. Chemical energy, in addition, is limited on account of the so-called greenhouse effect. Nuclear energy is based on the use of fissile materials, and is not a solution, because the stock of these materials is limited. The initial optimistic expectation of the transition to the process of controlled nuclear fusion has not yet materialized. Technical difficulties in obtaining sustainable superhot plasma and the damaging effects of the enormous neutron flux arising as a result of fusion reactions back down the solution to this problem on a more distant and uncertain future.
Recently there was the belief that the problem of controlled nuclear fusion could be solved in a completely different way. It has been shown experimentally that the cross-barrier synthetic processes depend greatly on the physical state of the matter that reactive atoms are placed in. Distance convergence of two deuterium nuclei through the mechanism of the Rydberg crystal cell in metals occurs by an order of magnitude smaller than the size of a free atom of deuterium. Coulomb barrier permeability in this DD fusion process increases greatly (by the 50–60 orders of magnitude) as compared with a permeability barrier to free molecules of deuterium. In this recent work, we discuss the possibility of detecting the “cold” DD fusion process experimentally by detecting low-energy electrons resulting from the fusion reaction of two deuterons in palladium crystals with very small (thermal) excitation energies of the intermediate compound nucleus 4He*. This process is made possible by the exchange of the excited compound nucleus with electrons of the crystal lattice that results from virtual photons.
It happens historically that the process of DD cold fusion was studied in more detail than other, similar processes. In this regard, we have restricted ourselves to this particular process. Presented below is a summary report of the situation that has now developed, in a cold DD fusion.
Accelerator experiments have shown that the value of screening potential for the impurity atoms in metallic crystals reaches up to 300 eV or even more. This means that, during DD reaction occurring in the medium of the metal crystal, impurity atoms are excited, and deuterium has not circular but elliptical electron orbits, which are oriented relative to each other a certain crystallographic manner. In this case, the nuclei of these atoms can approach each other by a distance substantially less than the size of the unexcited atom, yet still without Coulomb repulsion. Such processes are known in the art and are the cause of chemical catalysis. The processes were first quantitatively described by Johannes Rydberg in 1888.
Thus:
1. The existence of the phenomenon of cold fusion is now conclusively proved by experiments, including experiments on low-energy accelerators.
2. The observed absence of nuclear products for cold fusion can be explained by the decay of a compound nucleus 4He* slowing through nuclear channels as its excitation decreases in energy. The release of energy in this connection is mediated by virtual photons.
3. Prejudice of many nuclear experts to the phenomenon of cold fusion is due to the unusual nature of the nuclear process, in which cold fusion forms an intermediate compound nucleus 4He* in a metastable state.
4. The accumulated empirical rules of nuclear physics seem indisputable to the nuclear community, while the range of their application is merely limited. –E.N. Tsyganov
English version of the RASA 2013 report is here: RASA: Cold Nuclear Fusion
Russian version of the report is here: http://rasa-usa.org/?q=node/19115
and here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hliboxtbwznmshl/sjst5lSIQ2
Related Links
Only to those who prove themselves to be such by their own behavior on these threads. But thanks for proving my points so fully and wholeheartedly. As usual, total refusal to actually look at the published information, and any comment to shunt attention to that behavior away the one refusing. An exact fit to the phrase "pathological skepticism".
That's what the homos say, too.
LOL. More proof. You'll say or do anything to avoid confronting the issue of the existing data.
Here is the difference between you skeptopaths and real skeptics. A real science skeptic, given the references I have provided would not rest until he/she had read them.
A skeptopath will say or do anything to avoid reading them and change the subject to avoid acknowledging their existence, much less actually read and study them.
Methinks the shoe fits you quite well.
Enjoy your turkey, turkey.
When you have to employ those kinds of tactics, I don't really give a damn what you think.
If you’re interested in a practical source of energy, then investigate LENR. How many times has the PF Anomalous Heat Effect been replicated? more than 14,700. So, is this worth pursuing?
Where’s the beef?
***asked & answered
-————————————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85737.html-—————————
I wonder what you skeptopaths will say then.
***They will claim they were pro-LENR the whole time. Same thing happened to the Wright brothers. Thousands of detractors, then the day after the demos in France, those same detractors were claiming they never said such things. It’s a form of neurosis, combined with bandwagon jumping.
Low Energy, indeed.
LOL. Likewise, m'dear. I prefer to deal with intellectually honest folk. But your every response continues to prove my point. Shuckin' and jivin' to wiggle out of actually looking at published data. I've told you where and how to find the proof you say you want. The ball is yours. The fact that you choose to drop it rather than run with it "tells all".
Why won’t you tell people your “published data” won’t heat a teakettle?
Firstly, because some of the experiments "will" heat a teakettle quite nicely.
Secondly, because, by my having given search terms, they can, with a quick Google search, look up the data for themselves and find it out if they are honestly curious about the subject.
You, having NOT looked at the data, and adamantly refusing to do so, of course, know none of these things.
I can't find any record of any of them having been conducted and verified to have produced that much heat in the course of the experiment.
You "can't find them" because you haven't looked. Why keep bullshitting? We both know that you have not, and will not, actually look up the information. So why not quit wasting your time and my time saying that you have??
skeptopath, indeed
You don't know that, so "we both" can't know that.
Sure I can. Deduced from your complete lack of knowledge of the details of the subject, it is obvious you have studied the published info marginally, if at all (probability based on exposure to other skeptopaths.....not at all). Likewise, you have made claims on this thread to have studied materials that you could not possibly have done in the time frames you were posting. And since you already know the state of your lack of study, yes "we both" can indeed "know that".
Search functions can tell you what isn't there pretty quickly.
So, oh genius of Google, what magic search terms did you use that revealed to you the fraudularity of cold fusion??
Your constant refrain has been "I couldn't find....." information that I absolutely know is available on-line, and in quite a few different places. I don't think that speaks very highly of your choice of search terms.
But list your terms and let us see what they do or don't show.
WW—”But list your terms and let us see what they do or don’t show.”
Waiting.......................
WW—”But list your terms and let us see what they do or don’t show.”
Still waiting.................
That's what happens when I don't give a damn.
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.