Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cold Fusion For Christmas?
ECat Site ^ | Dec 15 2011 | Admin

Posted on 12/17/2011 9:08:40 PM PST by Kevmo

I doubt it.  Not this year anyway.  However, after a seemingly disappointing period of no significant news regarding the cold fusion saga, mid-December has found this story once again springing to life.

Last week Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney mentioned cold fusion in an interview with the conservative publication the Washington Examiner link.  As Governor Romney stumbled and bumbled and actually showed a poor grasp of the matter, it was likely that he was briefed about the matter by one of his “handlers” and encouraged to mention it in the interview.  It is also likely that his associates have spoken to Republican colleague, Massachusetts state senator Bruce Tarr, who invited Andrea Rossi  to Massachusetts for exploratory talks a couple of weeks ago.  The nature of his Governor Romney’s (ex of Massachusetts) indicate a “trial balloon,” a statement made to gauge public interest and reaction.  Yet, given in the context of his statement, a run for the Republican nomination to be a presidential candidate, his mere mention of the term  “cold fusion”  I think is significant.

I also need to point out here that the only two American politicians to mention cold fusion to date have been conservative Republicans, Governor Romney and Senator Tarr.  One would have reasonably expected the subject to have been broached first by more liberal political figures like the President or independent  Senator Bernie Sanders, or even a libertarian like Ron Paul, but so far they have remained remarkably silent about the matter.  Of course, as mentioned in the previous article here, the President has his hands full with the Solyndra solar scandal, so perhaps it is thought prudent that not make any mention of something as controversial as cold fusion.  I do not know what the excuse for the others is, with the “others” including a vast liberal portion of the Democratic party who have adopted green energy as part of their political mantra.

One segment of the U.S. Government who have not been so silent about cold fusion/LENR is the US Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) .  They have been working on this technology for nearly 20 years, with much of that research being led by Dr. Pamela Moiser-Boss.  In a video from 2009 that has just surfaced in the blogosphere, members of this organization, including Dr. Boss, give a quite an extensive and informative presentation regarding their cold fusion/LENR work.  That video is now available in the sidebar video player.  In this video, members of SPAWAR explain this phenonomon AS A FACT.  There is absolutely no equivocation with regards to their belief that this technology is real.  Let me state that once again to reiterate…MEMBERS OF THE U.S. NAVY’S SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND UNEQUIVOCALLY  STATE THAT COLD FUSION/LENR IS A FACT!

Interestingly, at the outset of this presentation, given at the University of Missouri in 2009, a SPAWAR spokesman states:  “We currently call it low-energy nuclear reactions.  That may not be any more accurate than the term cold fusion…”  I only bring this us because some in the blogosphere of late have gone to great lengths insisting that this is LENR not cold fusion.  I find these efforts a complete waste of time in the context of the greater discussion.  There are a host of mainstream scientists and journalists (a majority actually) who out of sheer ignorance continue to argue that this whole phenonomon is “junk” or “pathological science” and refuse to acknowledge data and evidence to the contrary.  I strongly feel efforts should be directed at educating the ignorant with facts that refute mistaken notions instead of having largely pointless arguments about what terms to use to describe a very real technology.

Speaking of the aforementioned, and moving on to more important developments in the evolving cold fusion saga, the New Energy Times has recently posted an article entiled “Shell’s Interest Indicates Major Shift for LENR.”   I think the title of the article speaks for itself.  I would strongly encourage all to read this article.  It is important because it not only indicates that large and powerful corporations are taking notice of this technology now but, according to the article, Shell did successful research into this field as far back  as the 1990s.

While it is curious that NASA kept silent about successful cold fusion research dating back to 1989, it is not really surprising that a major oil company has.  What is more surprising (or maybe not) is that Shell has decided to look into this again.  I think it indicates a continuing undercurrent of interest of entities that extend far beyond the world of the narrow-mindness and ignorance of so many that claim to be in-the-know.

I would note that if you do plan to read the Shell article, I would do it sooner rather than later as a commenter has already requested that this article be taken down because apparently this information was confidential and its disclosure has been deemed “highly inappropriate.”   The article also includes a new slide show (in PDF format) presentation that was part of NASA’s September 22 LENR workshop.  This information documents in more detail NASA’s 1989 cold fusion experimentation.

As the grand finale to the new information that has emerged regarding cold fusion this Holiday Season, is a report of the Coherence 2011cold fusion conference held in Rome, Italy on December 14.  This report was provided by Daniel Passerni of the 22Passi blog and may be found here.  The report includes links to 10 presentations provided at the conference.  Unfortunately for us Anglophones, this treasure trove of information is mostly in Italian. However, I have gone ahead and provided links to this information below for those who understand the language.  These links can also be found at the link provided above to the 22Passi blog.  The link has above is for the Google translated version of the page and it contains some important information in and of itself.

Perhaps of most interest are reports that Italian physicist Francesco Celani is now doing some very robust cold fusion work.  He reports cells now operating in the 200% excess heat range for periods of weeks!  He has been working with a variety of materials, including platinum and palladium, but seems to be getting the best results with…..nickel and hydrogen.  Apparently he has worked very closely with Japanese researcher Yoshiaki Arata, whose public demonstration of his work in 2008 has served as the impetus, it is felt, for many other researchers including Andrea Rossi and Brian Ahern.

There is a lot of information buried in these reports and I would encourage all to take at them as much as possible.  Admittedly they are hard to read because the Google translation is inexact.  However, one tidbit that is of interest is a report that Ahern and Rossi worked together on a project for the U.S. Department of Defense since 2008!  It is not clear how long this relationship latest or its extent.   This is of course contrary to statements made by Rossi that he has never met Ahern and may provide a background for some of the contention between the two.

The whole Coherence Conference actually deserves an article of its owns but, unfortunately, time does not permit this right at the moment.  The busy Holiday Season and personal matters prevent me from discussing it further at this time but I hope to have more to say about at a future date.  I expect Tom Baccei to have some insights about it and to bring them to his articles in the coming days.

I just want to offer a public word of thanks to Tom Baccei for the content he has provided to this site in recent days.  His contributions have been a great help to me personally and, by the look of the site page view counter and comment box, many of you are enjoying his contributions as well.  I think he is bringing a refreshing take on this whole saga and I look forward to his continued contributions in the coming days.

Reference materials from Coherence 2011

  1. Slides presentate da Ubaldo Mastromatteo (STMicroelectronics) a COHERENCE 2011

  2. Slides presentate da Paolo Pasquinelli (Università di Pisa) a COHERENCE 2011

  3. Slides presentate da Francesco Celani (Infn Frascati) a COHERENCE 2011

  4. Slides presentate da Yogendra Srivastava (Università di Perugia) a COHERENCE 2011

  5. Slides presentate da Sergio Bartalucci (Infn Frascati) a COHERENCE 2011

  6. Report di Vincenzo Valenti (COHERENCE 2011)

  7. Ambiente e Dispositivi a Fusione Nucleare Fredda: componenti a doppio uso? di Giuseppe Quartieri e Piero Quercia (COHERENCE 2011)

  8. Ambiente e Dispositivi a Fusione Nucleare Fredda: componenti a doppio uso? Reazioni magneto-nano-biofisiche LENR in biologia – Si tratta di fusione Nucleare Fredda e trasmutazioni biologiche? di Giuseppe Quartieri e Piero Quercia (COHERENCE 2011)

  9. Neutroni virtuali e miniatomi in reazioni LENR (comunicazione di Lino Daddi a COHERENCE 2011)

  10. Produzione spontanea di Ca da parte di piante di avena cresciute in assenza ambientale di tale elemento,Università di Milano – Pirelli Labs S.p.A. – IDROCONS, s.r.l (2007)

___________________________________________

For the latest news and updates see Headlines/Chatterings.

___________________________________________

Short URL for this page:  http://wp.me/p1SDhJ-HK

Rate this:

Share:

Like this:

Be the first to like this post.

This entry was posted in Articles, News, Science and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Cold Fusion For Christmas?

  1. Nixter says:

    The main point of interest here is the steadily increasing amount of data corroborating the LENR phenomena. Like most people I have been ignoring this matter since 1989, because some the top Physics professionals said it was bunk I put it on the back burner as wishful thinking. Then in 2009 I see the 60 minutes piece, that was real eye opener, when Rob Duncan vice chancellor of a Missouri Physics institution looked at current LENR work, he had an awakening and became an advocate of LENR research, that was interesting. Since then I have been waiting for possible confirmation from the larger experimental, physics community, and here we are approaching 2012 with this type of information trickling in from widespread, reliable sources and credibility is gaining steadily. Of course, we are not there yet, but LENR is gaining momentum as a viable energy solution, the final outcome is yet to be reached, but if Andrea Rossi actually sells functioning units to legitimate end users and they work as advertised, it’s game over for the entire Energy sector and humankind enters a new era.

  2. Burt says:

    200 percent? That is COP 2 right? I thougt we passed that level long time ago….



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Politics; Science
KEYWORDS: cmns; coldfusion; ecat; lenr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last
The Cold Fusion Ping List

http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/17/cold-fusion-for-christmas/

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

-------------------------------------------------------------- http://ecatnews.com/?p=1144

1 posted on 12/17/2011 9:08:43 PM PST by Kevmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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

The Cold Fusion Ping List

http://e-catsite.com/2011/12/17/cold-fusion-for-christmas/

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

——————————————————————————————— http://ecatnews.com/?p=1144


2 posted on 12/17/2011 9:09:34 PM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Coal in your stocking will generate more heat......


3 posted on 12/17/2011 9:18:13 PM PST by Red Badger (Every child should have a meadow to play in..............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
e-Cat? or -Dog?


4 posted on 12/17/2011 9:30:13 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Interesting that Romney would choose to talk about it at all, since it’s not apt to move the needle for him either way.

I’m content to stay tuned and let science work. I do like the natural combination of E-Cat and heat cycle aka Stirling engine.


5 posted on 12/17/2011 9:46:24 PM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Oh, yay, I was beginning to get bored without any news about our favorite scammer.

I love how this article calls him a researcher...when the guy has never had formal scientific training...and may not even have a college degree. The quibble about whether they are talking about “cold fusion” or “LENR” is a nice touch, too.


6 posted on 12/17/2011 10:26:38 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
The quibble about whether they are talking about “cold fusion” or “LENR” is a nice touch, too.

I couldn't make it through Kevmo's inconsiderate copy and paste job without my eyes bleeding.

I don't think energy output can be predicted with either "cold fusion" or "LENR," so I don't see what difference it makes. They're both fodder for scam artists.

7 posted on 12/17/2011 10:37:15 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Thank you for keeping up the flow of cold fusion information.


8 posted on 12/17/2011 10:44:55 PM PST by AZLiberty (No tag today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
I also need to point out here that the only two American politicians to mention cold fusion to date have been conservative Republicans, Governor Romney...

When did Willard become a conservative?

9 posted on 12/17/2011 10:56:07 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

This will be my standard post to moonboy that says you’re not worth trying to have reasonable discussion, also says “buzz off” & doesn’t leave crickets. But if it offends you to the point that you get it removed like my prior innocuous citation then I’ll have to come up with some other ‘ignore button’ post.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62

This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.

55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


10 posted on 12/18/2011 12:32:43 AM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

This is more news about LENR than Rossi, not that we can count on you to see the difference.


11 posted on 12/18/2011 12:34:46 AM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Yippiee!! Sunday cryptoscience!


12 posted on 12/18/2011 12:36:53 AM PST by Mycroft Holmes (Returned for regrooving...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
This is more news about LENR than Rossi, not that we can count on you to see the difference.

It's news in the sense that the Weekly World News is news, except what you copy and paste is more repetitive and dull.

13 posted on 12/18/2011 12:44:47 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

This will be my standard post to moonboy that says you’re not worth trying to have reasonable discussion, also says “buzz off” & doesn’t leave crickets. But if it offends you to the point that you get it removed like my prior innocuous citation then I’ll have to come up with some other ‘ignore button’ post.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62

This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.

55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


14 posted on 12/18/2011 1:03:53 AM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I know a lot about cold fusion, ask my ex wife!


15 posted on 12/18/2011 1:43:07 AM PST by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"I love how this article calls him a researcher...when the guy has never had formal scientific training...and may not even have a college degree. The quibble about whether they are talking about “cold fusion” or “LENR” is a nice touch, too."

Rossi has a quite legitimate Italian degree related to science.

From an Italian poster to Vortex-L:

"In philosphy, it required an "experimental" thesis, that is an original work, but not of the quality required for a PhD. In Italy, one is called "Dottore" with that degree. Indeed, it used to be the highest degree until 1986, if I remember correctly the year.."

"In 1973, Rossi graduated cum laude in Philosophy of Science and Engineering at the University of Milan with a thesis on Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and its interrelationship with Edmund Husserl’s Phenomenology. His advisor was Professor Ludovico Geymonat."

In addition, he has quite extensive experience in technology from working at his families firm before (and probably after) his university education.

Your accuracy is up to its usual standards.

16 posted on 12/18/2011 3:44:25 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
She was very accurate by calling his degree into doubt with these words:
and may not even have a college degree.
Considering Rossi's "character issues" (Kevmo's words), doubt should be the standard for any of his claims.
17 posted on 12/18/2011 8:29:26 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

They made a point of mentioning Rossi, didn’t they?


18 posted on 12/18/2011 10:20:25 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
It's news in the sense that the Weekly World News is news, except what you copy and paste is more repetitive and dull.

Don't insult the Weekly World News! It's a great publication; too bad it no longer is available in print.

19 posted on 12/18/2011 10:29:16 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Bat Boy lives forever.

20 posted on 12/18/2011 10:41:25 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
I actually did a bit of digging with this one, the results of which I posted in this thread, reply #99 (posted in response to reply #37).

Instead of making you go to all the trouble of finding that reply, I'll repost it here:

1. What is your source that he claimed to have a degree from this degree mill?

2. Any reason to dispute this doctorate? It seems to me that's far more significant than debating an undergrad degree.

I do not believe that Rossi has a doctorate.

Let's look at the text of the letter posted at the Nyteknik site (translated by Google):

This is to certify that the documents before the Secretary that Mr. Andrea Rossi was born in Milan on 03/06/1950, has been awarded by this university, on 10/12/1975, examination degree in Philosophy with a hundred and ten votes of one hundred and ten and obtained the academic qualification of Doctor of Science in Philosophy. This certificate is issued on plain paper at the request of, for the purposes authorized by law.

For one thing, the doctorate awarded by the University of Milan is called a "Dottorati di Ricerca" (Doctorate in Research), not "Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia" (Doctor's Degree in Philosophy) as the letter says. As far as I can tell, "Dottorati di Ricerca" is the name of all doctoral degrees in Italy. I Googled the term "Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia" and found some hits; apparently, that is the name of a MS degree awarded in Philosophy (the actual "I think therefore I am" type of philosophy). But the take-home message here is that the name of the degree in the letter is NOT a degree awarded at U of Milan.

Another discrepency is the time line, which is slightly off. According to the Univ. of Milan website, it is required to have both a Bachelor's and a Master's degree before applying for the Doctorate. The Bachelor's program is 3 years; the Master's adds another 2 years. The doctorate is 3 or 4 years. Assuming Rossi entered school at the age of 6 (the age most Italians begin school), he would have graduated at the age of 19 in spring, 1969. Further assuming that he proceeded directly from high school to college, took no breaks, and graduated each level in the minimum time, the earliest I can figure out someone born in 1950 could have earned a PhD would have been spring of 1977. If he had entered elementary school early, at the age of 5, he could possibly have pulled off a Doctorate in spring, 1976. Either way, his timeline is one or two years short.

Another discrepancy is in the way the degree is described as having been awarded in the letter, with "110 votes". The Italian doctorate is awarded on the basis of several criteria--passing a PhD exam, submission of a dissertation, and a jury examination. As far as I can tell, the jury consists of three members.

Other oddities that stand out are that he supposedly obtained his doctorate on "relativity" and that he has no actual certificate to show for his doctorate. The "relativity" topic is rather nonsensical; in my experience, PhDs are awarded in fields of academic study (for instance, in "Genetics" or "Theoretical Physics") and the topic of the PhD is given in the dissertation title, for example, "Mechanisms of toxicity exhibited following exposure to heterocyclic halogenated hydrocarbons." And where is his actual doctorate certificate? That is not something that people typically lose, and people usually like to display it so that others can see it--my PhD certificate is nicely displayed in a cherry frame, along with my graduation tassels, and I keep it hanging on the wall in my office. Plus, if I should need to document my PhD, I request copies of my transcript be sent; I don't ask for a letter stating the degree I received.

I suspect the letter shown is a fake. The letter shows oddities: the font size changes for no discernable reason, and even though it is not right justified, there are variable gaps between words.

Lastly, Rossi neither acts like a scientist nor speaks the language of science.

I found this information with the help of Google, the U of Milan website, and Google translate.

21 posted on 12/18/2011 10:47:08 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Golly Kev,

why can’t we all stay on topic with ad hominem attacks on Andrea Rossi? You spoil the game by introducing hard science from the United States Navy that confirms Rossi is not only a scientist but a savvy entrepreneur.

See, I specialize in what’s called “reframing” the argument. It’s a kind of chef specialty taught at the pretty good school of propaganda. Lots of treacherous aholes use it to distract people from the facts.

I’m just pissed the facts are the whole LENR phenom is real and producing products that’ll shut down my in-bred fiefdom of criminals and mobsters! We want to control science so’s we can rip you ignorant clowns off keepin you addicted to oil and um... “hot fusion.” That hoax cost ‘Mericans $6 BILLION DOLLARS and they got jack sheit to show for it.

So, um let’s keep trying to kill the messenger like exMom - cause the facts Rossi’s delivering are killing us!


22 posted on 12/18/2011 2:23:19 PM PST by Awnest (Live free or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

ExDemMom, you make some good points. Keep in mind that all the Rossi’s fanboys like Kevmo are playing the person across the board (nitpicking about academic degrees) and not the pieces on the board (namely, scientific and engineering facts). I ignore the person and focus on the chess pieces on the board.

Almost all the postings from Kevmo to Free Republic are dishonest: not so mcuh dishonest to the general public (and it is indeed) but -more importantly- dishonest to themselves, the pro-Rossi camp. What I am referring to is confirmation bias: the postings ignore the failures and trumpet the ‘’successes’’, not realizing that the failures point to some essential issues relating to the engineering of viable energy generators.

David Goodstein, vice-provost of CalTech, wrote a book “On Fact and Fraud”, relating to scientific fraud and error. Chapter 5 focuses on Cold Fusion. Prof. Goodstein talked about his friend Prof. Scaramuzzi who became involved in cold fusion frenzy. However, Scaramuzzi changed his methods (read the book for details) and came up with the most solid evidence for LENR. Work by Rendell Mills (hydrino) is mainly pathological science. Work by Rossi may have started as pathological science but is becoming more and more just plain fraud. I am surprised that Rossi (italian) did not consult his fellow countryman Dr. Scaramuzzi.

In science, they say that any process which does not violate the basic laws of physics will occur to SOME non-zero extent. Question: what is the speed of said process? All the papers listed in the various LENR websites end up with unknown (experimentally and theoretically) proportionality factors. A glass of water (say, 100cc), make it deuterated water, a room temperature and 1 atm., WILL be the locus of 1 nuclear fusion event: would that be 1 event per day? per year? per decade? per century? per millenium? Whatever number you come up with should be compatible with observations of the geology of Earth and with the behavior of the surrounding Cosmos. One may say: ‘’well, the experimental conditions are SOOO SPECIAL that no way it can be reproduced in Nature!!!’’ No dice. Earth has at least 2 things going: time (4 billion years), mass (mega-gigatons of metal and hydrogen/deuterium).

In previous postings, I showed that the acceptance of radioactivity as a true event was very rapid since it filled in the gap between current observation of volcanism and the (old and discarded) theoretic result (by Lord Kelvin) that Earth cannot be older than 100,000,000 years. In the 1950’s the analysis of selected volcanic eruptions pointed to Aluminum-26 (radioactive) to be the main driver of Earth’s nuclear process but the levels of Aluminum-26 were too high. Then scientists found that Earth’s mantle and core is not homogeneous. The current and standard model of Earth’s geological process gives a good (not perfect) accounting of Earth’s geological history and composition (element-wise and isotope-wise).

Is there a place for LENR in the modelling of Earth’s behavior? Of course, yes! There is some badly needed search of the scientific literature that Rossi, Mills, and their fanboys can do and that is their homework.

All the work I have seen on LENR/cold fusion have 2 processes going on: 1- a physico-chemical process (overlooked or ignored) 2-(probably) a LENR process.

The platinum-based experiments have a greater probability of exhibiting LENR than the Nickel-based experiments. So far, none of experiments (including the electrochemical) have done a complete and accurate energy audit of the COMPLETE fuel-product cycle. Given the incomplete energy audit, the excessive energy ratio has been in the 2 to 6 range, well within the physico-chemical process capabilities. How can one assure a complete energy audit? That is the homework for Mills, Rossi, and their fanboys.

How come the focus on Platinum and Nickel? Prof Miley of U. of Illinois at Urbana used laminated Pt/Ni plate but the nuclear results would have more to do with Pt and not with Ni. Rendell Mills - at least him - explored quite a range of chemical mixtures and came to the Ni/H system at least 2 years before Rossi. I would not be surprised if Rossi stole Mill’s idea, dropped the hydrino hypothesis and stuck with the LENR. Even the experiments of Pons and Fleischmann were not original: they were repeating some experiments done in Germany in the early 1930’s. All events point that Ni and Pl become the focus because of the physico-chemical process (much more common) then the possible (and rare) LENR process. The issue of catalyst as in Rossi’s e-cat is a chemical concept, not a nuclear one and said catalyst affects only the physico-chemical process, not the nuclear one.

Hey! I will be working on my own (theoretical first!) study of liquid Pb/Ca/D system. Lead has an atomic number (82) greater than that of Nickel (28) and of Platinum (78) [a very important point!!], is cheaper than Ni and Pt, and has a lower melting point than Ni and Pt. The choice of Calcium can be replaced by some other element whose atomic number is less than 28 (Nickel having the most stable nucleus). Liquid form since the enhanced-lattice crap (found at LENR websites) is just a red herring. Besides, in liquid form, any metallurgical peculiarities disappear and the physico-chemical process goes away. D is for deuterium (essential but there is a range of Deuterium concentrations which does not interfere in the possible LENR. What is that range? That is for me to know and you to guess).

As one of the references (pointed to by commentator JohnnyB) stated, the energy involved in the Widom hypothesis is way too high to be plausible. There is another mechanism (not mentioned in any of the papers at the LENR websites) involving less energy than the Widom hypothesis: possible with the Pt electrochemical process, absent in the Rossi scheme.

The latest posting by commentator JohnnyB listed 4 NASA powerpoint presentations. All of them just listed what was out there in InternetLand (no experiments done at NASA). But then all of the presentations drifted into FantasyLand, dreaming of breadbox-sized cold-fusion engines for space travel. Not. Going. To. Happen. Going back to the David Goldstein’s book, Chapter 5 talked about Scaramuzzi’s extensive efforts to rule any artifacts masquerading as LENR: the experiments went on continuously for months and there were sporadic bursts of neutrons. Here is where I become disappointed: what is the definition of “sporadic”? 1 burst per day? 1 burst per week? Too often accounts of LENR are written like the UFO books of yesterday. The sporadic nature of the results (thus implying long intervals of failure) points to the proper engineering design of stable LENR output. Take a few steps back. One of the Free Republic commentators made a very relevant point: the power density (per kilogram) of the Sun is 0.001 watt (=1 milliwatt) whereas the heat output per kilogram per second of the human body is 1 watt.

The US Navy experiments relate to electrochemical processes, not Rossi’s scheme. Vague accounts of “glowing” processes going on for hundreds of days (100 days? 200 days? 300 days?), vague accounts of converting in 2 months 10% of Nickel into Copper: put them in the same category as UFO’s and werewolves.


23 posted on 12/18/2011 3:43:08 PM PST by barracuda1412
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Awnest
The problem is, there is little "hard science" supporting cold fusion. Cold fusion, at this point, seems to be following the trajectory of a pathological science--where there is a great deal of initial interest, but, as experiments become more stringent and results don't materialize, interest tends to wane until only a handful of dévotés continue to research the topic.

With such a paucity of "hard science" to discuss, the real interest in this topic does seem to center around its current star.

24 posted on 12/18/2011 4:02:07 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"Another discrepency is the time line, which is slightly off. According to the Univ. of Milan website, it is required to have both a Bachelor's and a Master's degree before applying for the Doctorate. The Bachelor's program is 3 years; the Master's adds another 2 years. The doctorate is 3 or 4 years. Assuming Rossi entered school at the age of 6 (the age most Italians begin school), he would have graduated at the age of 19 in spring, 1969. Further assuming that he proceeded directly from high school to college, took no breaks, and graduated each level in the minimum time, the earliest I can figure out someone born in 1950 could have earned a PhD would have been spring of 1977. If he had entered elementary school early, at the age of 5, he could possibly have pulled off a Doctorate in spring, 1976. Either way, his timeline is one or two years short."

LOL. Your "research" is laughable. Lots of speculation, very little in the way of verifiable fact. Here's a clue. I was born in 1947. I graduated with my PhD (chemistry) in 1973. And I lost a year switching from mechanical engineering to chemistry. So much for your timeline.

25 posted on 12/18/2011 4:25:23 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"The problem is, there is little "hard science" supporting cold fusion. Cold fusion, at this point, seems to be following the trajectory of a pathological science--where there is a great deal of initial interest, but, as experiments become more stringent and results don't materialize, interest tends to wane until only a handful of dévotés continue to research the topic."

"With such a paucity of "hard science" to discuss, the real interest in this topic does seem to center around its current star.

WHAT "paucity"?? Have you actually spent ANY in the "Library" time at the LENR-CANR site?? There is plenty of evidence to discuss. The problem is that "mainstream scienctists" come in pre-prejudiced, just as you have, without bothering to actually examine the evidence.

26 posted on 12/18/2011 4:29:33 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
LOL. Your "research" is laughable. Lots of speculation, very little in the way of verifiable fact. Here's a clue. I was born in 1947. I graduated with my PhD (chemistry) in 1973. And I lost a year switching from mechanical engineering to chemistry. So much for your timeline.

I said at the bottom of that post exactly where I got the information. My timeline came from the wiki entry on Italian education, and from the U of Milan website. In Italy, unlike in the US, it is required to have a Master's degree prior to getting a Doctorate. Their timeline appears to be more strict than that for American education. Furthermore, unlike the timeline we would have to believe if that document posted at Nyteknik represented a Doctorate earned by Rossi, your own personal timeline to a Doctorate is actually possible in the Italian model. Rossi's is at least a year too short. (Although, as I already pointed out, I have my doubts as to the authenticity of the letter as posted on the Nyteknik site.)

BTW, much of the U of Milan website can be accessed in English. And the parts that are only in Italian can be translated by Google.

Just because you don't like the results of my on-line research, doesn't mean I was sloppy or incomplete about it. You are free to look at the U of Milan website and find the exact degree that Rossi claims to have earned and post it here, with links, to prove me wrong.

27 posted on 12/18/2011 6:12:15 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Lastly, Rossi neither acts like a scientist nor speaks the language of science.

As an example, here is a sample Rossi tirade posted here.

"We will run also in self sustained mode, the periods will depend on many factors. In any case, the power output will be 6 times the power input. About the snakes: the time of the snakes is over. The start up of the 1 MW plant is the end of the mental masturbations of enviuos, wannabe theorists, lecturers of calorimetry and engineering. Now LENR goes to the market. The test will not be made by me, but by the Customers’ consultants. Time of chatters is over. Maybe the test will not be good, maybe: it will be the first time I will start up a plant of that dimension, but in this case the problem will be the Customer, not the bunch of imbeciles that instead of understanding that we actually made LENR a reality lose their time digging holes on the surface the water in the middle of the ocean to find the wine. And in the case this test will go not well, we will learn and remake another, and another, and another, but, be sure, we will arrive to the target. At any cost."

28 posted on 12/18/2011 6:56:02 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

I must say, that is a remarkable example of self-control, mature discourse, eloquence, and mastery of language. I am impressed.

/s

(I said “language”, not “English language”, in view of the fact that this guy barely speaks English. Although I doubt his Italian is much better.)


29 posted on 12/19/2011 1:19:09 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Excellent! Two more names added to the Flat Earthers list from these posters.


30 posted on 12/19/2011 1:20:27 PM PST by citizen (Fear the Newt, folks. He never has his thumb more than 6" away from the self-destruct button.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
"Just because you don't like the results of my on-line research, doesn't mean I was sloppy or incomplete about it. You are free to look at the U of Milan website and find the exact degree that Rossi claims to have earned and post it here, with links, to prove me wrong."

The problem with your research is (as usual) you are ASSUMING things you flatly don't know, and did not bother to find out. Specifically, whether or not the degrees/requirements have CHANGED in the time period between 1975 and today. The Italian comment I quoted says specifically that they HAVE changed, and that the degree that Rossi has was, at one time, the highest degree offered at Milan, but is no longer so. That commentor doesn't get into specifics as to what current degrees/requirements are. And in fact your own U. of Milan link ALSO says that the university made major changes in degrees and requirements in the 1990's, but doesn't give specifics as to what things were chaned FROM.

There is no indication that Rossi's degree isn't perfectly legitimate for the time and place granted. Other than, of course, your imagination.

31 posted on 12/19/2011 4:27:56 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
There is no indication that Rossi's degree isn't perfectly legitimate for the time and place granted.

Except for that creepy letter that conjures up memories of Rathergate.

Plus, if I should need to document my PhD, I request copies of my transcript be sent; I don't ask for a letter stating the degree I received.

I suspect the letter shown is a fake. The letter shows oddities: the font size changes for no discernable reason, and even though it is not right justified, there are variable gaps between words.


32 posted on 12/19/2011 8:19:26 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: barracuda1412

Almost all the postings from Kevmo to Free Republic are dishonest
***bowlsheet. And your own posting gives credibility to the science behind LENR, which puts you in exactly the same position as pro-LENR enthusiasts such as myself.


33 posted on 12/19/2011 9:50:38 PM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
And your own posting gives credibility to the science behind LENR,

Can reaction rates and energy output be accurately calculated?

34 posted on 12/19/2011 11:21:52 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Don’t get out in front of LENR. If there were anything to it, it would have been observed before now.


35 posted on 12/19/2011 11:26:48 PM PST by Royal Wulff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Royal Wulff
"If there were anything to it, it would have been observed before now."

How many times does it need to be observed??? One of the interesting tidbits from the original Pons and Fleischmann paper was historical commentary that scientists had sporadically observed "excess heat" in palladium/hydrogen systems long before science even knew about either fission OR fusion.

And then there are all the papers and talks that show directly the existence of such heat. For your edification, I suggest visiting the LENR-CANR.ORG website and browsing the "Library" section which has MANY papers documenting current work.

36 posted on 12/20/2011 4:11:03 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog; Royal Wulff
"If there were anything to it, it would have been observed before now."

Your statement above is an indication of how little you've actually studied the subject and, because of people's tendency to think of their own knowledge as the sine qua non of historical understanding, you assume the little knowledge you have to be definitive. It's also like the child who thinks that history began with his birthday.
37 posted on 12/20/2011 4:18:49 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Oh, look! A cold fusion thread.

Photobucket
38 posted on 12/20/2011 4:30:03 AM PST by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
One of the interesting tidbits from the original Pons and Fleischmann paper was historical commentary that scientists had sporadically observed "excess heat" in palladium/hydrogen systems long before science even knew about either fission OR fusion.

Did any of those experiments or any since correctly predict the amount of heat?

39 posted on 12/20/2011 5:07:34 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"Did any of those experiments or any since correctly predict the amount of heat?"

Get a clue, seagull. SCIENCE is all about the primacy of EXPERIMENT over THEORY. See Feynmann.

40 posted on 12/20/2011 5:39:26 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
I'll take that as a no.

Scientists have been able to accurately calculate rates of reaction and energy output for muon catalyzed cold fusion for 50 years. It looks like that's not the case for your pathological science.

41 posted on 12/20/2011 6:42:04 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"Scientists have been able to accurately calculate rates of reaction and energy output for muon catalyzed cold fusion for 50 years. It looks like that's not the case for your pathological science."

Let's see. Fifty years....that would mean that the scientific basis to make such calculations originated around 1960. The muon was discovered in 1936. So to develop the capacity took about forty years. And research into the properties of the muon wasn't artificially impeded by an active campaign to deny funding or academic positions to any who dared to do such research.

The Pons/Fleischmann experiment was in 1988. So CF should be due to reach that level of theoretical prediction capability around 2025. Given the current rapid strides being made in understanding the mechanisms of LANR in spite of the artificial barriers currently in place on such research, I think LANR will beat out "muon catalyzed CF" by quite a few years in reaching that capability.

Oh, and here's a trivia tidbit for you......what was the ONLY proven case of fraud in cold fusion research??? (Hint...it's NOT Rossi).

42 posted on 12/20/2011 7:41:35 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
From Wiki:
Andrei Sakharov and F.C. Frank [3] predicted the phenomenon of muon-catalyzed fusion on theoretical grounds before 1950. Yakov Borisovich Zel'dovich[4] also wrote about the phenomenon of muon-catalyzed fusion in 1954. Luis W. Alvarez et al.,[5] when analyzing the outcome of some experiments with muons incident on a hydrogen bubble chamber at Berkeley in 1956, observed muon-catalysis of exothermic p-d, proton and deuteron, nuclear fusion, which results in a helion, a gamma ray, and a release of about 5.5 MeV of energy. The Alvarez experimental results, in particular, spurred John David Jackson to publish one of the first comprehensive theoretical studies of muon-catalyzed fusion in his ground-breaking 1957 paper.[6] This paper contained the first serious speculations on useful energy release from muon-catalyzed fusion. Jackson concluded that it would be impractical as an energy source, unless the "alpha-sticking problem" (see below) could be solved, leading potentially to an energetically cheaper and more efficient way of utilizing the catalyzing muons.[6] This assessment has, so far, stood the test of time.
So it only took a year from the first observation of muon catalyzed cold fusion in 1956 to accurately explaining it theoretically. The quackery you promote is way behind that timetable.
43 posted on 12/20/2011 7:57:04 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"So it only took a year from the first observation of muon catalyzed cold fusion in 1956 to accurately explaining it theoretically. The quackery you promote is way behind that timetable."

Ah, so it's NOT "all about Rossi", is it. In your mind, ALL cold fusion if fraudulent. Glad you finally officially outed yourself.

Oh, and you didn't answer the question I asked about what was the ONLY proven instance of fakery in CF research.

44 posted on 12/20/2011 9:51:28 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Dang it all. I just got back from a biz trip to Europe. I love how my company thinks it’s doing me a favor, a couple of days before Christmas.

If I had had time to make it down to Bologna, I would have written Rossi requesting a meeting. He seems to have no problem talking to folks and my bona fides should at least have gotten me in the door.

I would liked to meet him to sus him out.

Now, before people say he’s a con man and of course I would have been impressed by him that is not true.
We have four options here:
1) The E-Cat is real.
2) Rossi believes the E-cat is real.
3) Rossi believes in the E-cat but he feels with more money spent, he can make it work.
4) He’s a scammer and knows it does not work and is merely scamming for cash.

Nevertheless, meeting someone when you have the experience I have in these situations, I feel I could either say with confidence (keeping in mind that this is only my opinion based on a lot of experience) whether he is an out and out con-man. Eliminating that leads to end of discussion or if not, then on to figuring out whether 1,2,3 is the case. I would prefer #1 to be the case, #2 would mean he is either not measuring the output correctly or something else but he believes it works so even with this option, it eliminates him from being a con man although it would be nice to have independent tests done to eliminate this option. #3 is where I believe Randall Mills is with Black Light Power; he knows something is there but can’t scale it up to be useful and he has spent millions and as far as his operations seem, they’re on the up and up.

I would have loved to meet Rossi; I’ve been to Italy many times and know how to deal with them besides being married to one...
On one of my free days I could have possibly made it down there but I didn’t know what day that would have been and it is rude to pound on someone’s door and ask to speak with Rossi and possibly get a tour.

I’ve got to go, I think, in March so I might build in some time and make an effort to meet him. If nothing else, it would be interesting.


45 posted on 12/20/2011 12:28:38 PM PST by Lx (Do you like it, do you like it. Scott? I call it Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Ah, so it's NOT "all about Rossi", is it. In your mind, ALL cold fusion if fraudulent. Glad you finally officially outed yourself.

It's fraudulent to equate it to other energy production methods and I've explained why.

46 posted on 12/20/2011 5:08:45 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

This will be my standard post to moonboy that says you’re not worth trying to have reasonable discussion, also says “buzz off” & doesn’t leave crickets. But if it offends you to the point that you get it removed like my prior innocuous citation then I’ll have to come up with some other ‘ignore button’ post.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2800058/posts?page=55#55
To: Moonman62

This means I have nothing more to say to you about LENR. Bye.

55 posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 4:41:07 PM by Kevmo (Caveat lurkor pro se ipso judicatis: Let the lurker decide for himself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


47 posted on 12/20/2011 5:26:27 PM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lx
1) The E-Cat is real.
2) Rossi believes the E-cat is real.
3) Rossi believes in the E-cat but he feels with more money spent, he can make it work.
4) He’s a scammer and knows it does not work and is merely scamming for cash.

Or he could be like George Costanza: It's not a lie if you believe it's true.

48 posted on 12/20/2011 5:38:07 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Royal Wulff

If there were anything to it, it would have been observed before now.
***The Pons-Fleischmann excess heat effect has been replicated more than 14,700 times.

https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com

Jing-tang He
• Nuclear fusion inside condense matters
• Frontiers of Physics in China
Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8
This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions, self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications

http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)


Scientific American

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-scientists-sin

1. Jed Rothwell
11:52 AM 6/20/10
Shermer says that Goodstein concluded that cold fusion was most likely a case of scientists who “convince themselves that they are in the possession of knowledge that does not in fact exist.”

Cold fusion has been replicated in over 180 major laboratories, by roughly 1,500 professional scientists. These replications have been published in roughly 800 papers in mainstream, peer reviewed journals such as J. Electroanal. Chem. and Japanese J. of Applied Physcis. J. He of the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences estimates that the effect has been observed in roughly 14,000 experimental runs (Front. Phys. China (2007) 1: 96 102).

Many of the results were at low signal to noise ratio, but others were high, such as heat from 10 to 100 W, and tritium at 50 times background (Los Alamos, Texas A&M) up to several million times (BARC).

Most of the researchers who have reported positive results are senior, distinguished experts, such as the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, government of India, and the experts at Los Alamos in charge of the Tritium Systems Test Assembly and the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princton. Only senior researchers can get funding because of academic politics.

When a result has been widely replicated at high signal to noise ratios and reported in the literature, that result is real, by definition. There is no other standard of reality in science. If it were possible for hundreds of scientists in hundreds of laboratories to be wrong, the experimental method would not work, and no result would be meaningful, and science itself would not work. If Shermer and Goodstein would substitute some other standard of truth, and ignore replication and peer-review, they are engaged in some form of faith-based religion or a popularity contest, not science.


49 posted on 12/20/2011 5:41:38 PM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R

So... you guys can call yourselves seagulls but if I do it the posts get removed by the admin moderator.


50 posted on 12/20/2011 5:43:29 PM PST by Kevmo (When a thing is owned by everybody nobody gives value to it. Communism taught us this. ~A. Rossi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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