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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
Short URL for this page: http://wp.me/p1SDhJ-HK
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Politics; Science
KEYWORDS: cmns; coldfusion; ecat; lenr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
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.)
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.
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.)
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)
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.)
To: Kevmo
Don’t get out in front of LENR. If there were anything to it, it would have been observed before now.
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.
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
To: Kevmo
Oh, look! A cold fusion thread.
38
posted on
12/20/2011 4:30:03 AM PST
by
ZX12R
(FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
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.)
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
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.
200 percent? That is COP 2 right? I thougt we passed that level long time ago….
That is a good point Burt. The 200% is what I read but it may be a Google translation error or wrongly stated. However, Passerini’s article does state that Celani’s work is in it’s infancy so those numbers would be consistent with that. Although not impressive in and of itself, it does provide evidence of more people successfully working on this outside of the names commonly bantered about. It was Celani who so “kindly” offered to evaluate the e-Cat independently and who brought a spectrometer to January 14 test, which angered Rossi when he found out.