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

Skip to comments.

Progress in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (Cold Fusion/LENR/LANR)
22passi ^ | 09 Jan 2012 | Francesco Celani

Posted on 01/09/2012 5:33:28 AM PST by Wonder Warthog

On March 23, 1989, the international scientific environment, and not only that, was deeply surprised because of the abrupt announcement by two Scientists, one of them at world-class level (M. Fleischmann), that they had detected measurable, and unexplainable, excess energy after prolonged electrolysis of Heavy Water using Palladium (Pd) rods as cathode. Such a phenomenon, that cannot be ascribed to usual chemistry or physics reactions, was improperly given the odd name “cold fusion”, remembering similarities with the “muon-catalysed fusion” predicted (1952) by A. Sacharov and measured (1956) by L. Alvarez (Nobel Laureates): both fusion were realised at room temperatures and not at the “usual” several million of °C.

The results, apart from the initial enthusiasm, were generally considered with large scepticism from most of the science community because they were completely unexpected in theory, and poorly reproducible in the experiments. As a consequence, only the Researchers and a few Institutions continued the studies that got - mostly by chance - some good results and of, enough high, scientific quality.

Among them we mention NASA and John Bockris at A&M Texas, who started in July 1989 an investigation looking for occurring of usual Deuterium-Deuterium (D-D) fusion with emission of neutrons (i.e. strong force interaction). They did not find it but NASA detected unexplainable behaviour of Pd tube when heated at high temperatures (350°C) and Hydrogen (H2) or Deuterium (D2) gas were allowed to flow in and out. In short, the behaviour of energy production was as expected using H2 gas but completely unexpected with D2. Heat production was detected both in the incoming and out-coming phases of the gas: such effect was against any previous scientific experience! Such key results were not communicated immediately to the Scientific Community until, by chance, a report was found inside a drawer and wide-spread only in 2004. In December 2009 another similar experiment was performed, devoted to reconfirm the thermal anomalies found on 1989. The results, thanks to specific and improved instruments, were of even better quality. Again, the results were not made public until the document was found, by chance, on the web in August 2011. Recently, top level NASA Researchers are more “open” about their results produced “at home”.

Apart from such episodes, over one thousand Researchers, mainly in J, I, USA, RUS, CP, IND, F, D, continued such studies, usually with low budget constrains. Among them, the methodologies developed, models introduced and results obtained, by M. Srinivasan, Preparata-Del Giudice, A. Takahashi, P. Hagelstein, E. Storm, Chubb-Chubb, M. Kubre, Piantelli-Focardi, F. Celani, Y. Iwamura, G. Miley, T. Mizuno, De Ninno-Violante, H. Kozima, Larsen-Widom, X.Z. Li, J. Biberian, A. Huke, were especially innovative: published most of the results found or models developed. So, in spite of adverse conditions, the progress from the science point of view was remarkable: about theory, is “growing” a model based on weak force interaction.

A big step forward happened when, thanks to Y. Arata (Osaka Univ.-J), who, since 2002, introduced proper nano-materials (Pd, at size of 5-20 nm), dispersed in an anti-sintering matrix (ZrO2), and in contact to pressurised D2 gas. The results of Arata were the first ones fully reproduced by other scientists (A. Takahashi, A. Kitamura, Japan) and even using materials produced by an independent Industry (Santoku K.K.). Later, the original findings were even improved with better results thanks to new materials (based on ZrO2-Ni-Pd), always nano-sized, as prepared by B. Ahern (USA) and initially studied since 2005 by Arata.

As far as recent claims of very large excess power using “micro-nano-sized Nickel” interacting with H2 at high pressure and temperatures are concerned, coming from groups operating in Italy and Greece, we have to underline that both groups refused (because, according to them, patents/business constrains), up to now, independent tests of their apparatus: then, we cannot give scientific credit, as to-day, to their work. BTW, on November 2011, F. Celani asked to the Italian A. Rossi, through a widespread science magazine (Focus), to validate one of his 10kW's device. Even the public “persuasion” of the Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson was enough to get such device for scientific, fully independent, tests.

Nevertheless, we believe that so many evidences have been collected by serious Scientists up to now, that the reality of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions may be soon acknowledged by the whole scientific community, opening the way towards the fully exploration of their potential for practical applications and long term sustainability of this, practically infinite, energy source.

In these weeks our group, working with long and thin wires having the surface coated with micro-nano-particles, get re-confirmation of a phenomenon, by us, seldom observed in some previous experiments: the specific alloy used (Cu-Ni), that usually has Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) of the resistance, if absorbs large amount of Hydrogen, changes to Negative TC. Such phenomenon is correlated to anomalous heat production and increases as the anomalous heat increases. If such key phenomenon will be kept under full control, because its behaviour can be observed with simple instrumentation, it can be open the door to systematic work, worldwide, to find the “optimal” material and operating point.


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: canr; cmns; coldfusion; ecat; fusion; lanr; lenr
Abstract of paper to be presented by Franceso Celani at World Sustainable Energy Conference WSEC 10-12 January 2012.

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/Celani%20Abstract.doc

1 posted on 01/09/2012 5:33:32 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

http://www.22passi.it/downloads/Celani%20Abstract.doc


2 posted on 01/09/2012 5:34:21 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Translation” What benefits, when, how wide spread, how practical, how safe, how expensive?


3 posted on 01/09/2012 5:45:14 AM PST by MindBender26 (Don't bother me with the small stuff. I'm too busy trying to save the Republic from Obamaism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

NONSENSE AND BALDERDASH! Bunk, lies, and exaggeration. Fibs and prevarication. No truth to any of it.


4 posted on 01/09/2012 5:50:24 AM PST by Lazamataz (Romney is the Pale Obama. That's all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

That’s a poor translation.

Citing documents “found in a drawer,” or “found on the internet” is hardly reassuring about the validity of the resaults claimed.


5 posted on 01/09/2012 6:24:44 AM PST by VietVet (I am old enough to know who I am and what I believe, and I 'm not inclined to apologize for any of)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VietVet

Every single decision Obama makes is to harm America.


6 posted on 01/09/2012 6:26:08 AM PST by Lazamataz (Every single decision Obama makes is to harm America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: VietVet

Every single decision Obama makes is to harm America.


7 posted on 01/09/2012 6:26:19 AM PST by Lazamataz (Every single decision Obama makes is to harm America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"NONSENSE AND BALDERDASH! Bunk, lies, and exaggeration. Fibs and prevarication. No truth to any of it."

I was inclined to think the same until some folks at NASA started taking it seriously. Remember, the list of people who were wrong about scientific advances is long and includes some prominent names (at least at the time of their skepticism). Examples: cars will never reach 60 MPH, powered flight is impossible, rockets won't work in space, controlled nuclear fission is impossible.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/NASA/20110922NASA-Zawodny-GRC-LENR-Workshop.pdf

If it turns out to be practical, it will be the most significant energy discovery in history. One quote from the slides I linked:

Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry

8 posted on 01/09/2012 6:28:55 AM PST by PreciousLiberty (Real Hope - Santorum '12!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Powder..patch..ball FIRE!

Solid physical science that can open whole new materials energy research. Confirmation of effects observed with the physics to replicate every time consistently. Oh man and it would shut up the seagulls!


9 posted on 01/09/2012 6:31:46 AM PST by BallandPowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

Every single decision Obama makes is to harm America.


10 posted on 01/09/2012 6:44:56 AM PST by Lazamataz (Every single decision Obama makes is to harm America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

But . . . but . . . it was published in a real science magazine, “Focus.” LOL!!!!!


11 posted on 01/09/2012 7:13:28 AM PST by Sudetenland (Anybody but Obama!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

Maybe. But every single decision Obama makes is to harm America.


12 posted on 01/09/2012 7:18:23 AM PST by Lazamataz (Every single decision Obama makes is to harm America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
There is a typo or translation error:
As far as recent claims of very large excess power using “micro-nano-sized Nickel” interacting with H2 at high pressure and temperatures are concerned, coming from groups operating in Italy and Greece, we have to underline that both groups refused (because, according to them, patents/business constrains), up to now, independent tests of their apparatus: then, we cannot give scientific credit, as to-day, to their work. BTW, on November 2011, F. Celani asked to the Italian A. Rossi, through a widespread science magazine (Focus), to validate one of his 10kW's device. Even the public “persuasion” of the Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson was not enough to get such device for scientific, fully independent, tests.
Based on this, Celani seems to be backing away from Rossi and Defkalion, which is probably a smart move on his part.
13 posted on 01/09/2012 7:40:25 AM PST by Johnny B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
"Translation” What benefits, when, how wide spread, how practical, how safe, how expensive?"

Jed Rothwell has written a book outlining some of the answers to your first two questions. I'm at work so don't have link handy (or many spare minutes). Will post later. At risk of turning this into a "Rossi" thread, your latter questions will be answered by this fall, when Rossi plans to offer individual home E-cats (10kw (heat only), $1000-$1500/unit). Combined heat/AC/electricity units to follow in about a year. Sold and installed through existing HVAC outlets (including Home Depot).

14 posted on 01/09/2012 7:57:16 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"NONSENSE AND BALDERDASH! Bunk, lies, and exaggeration. Fibs and prevarication. No truth to any of it."

A good summation of the psycho-skeptic position. But don't you know that using a four-bit word like "prevarication" is dangerous???

15 posted on 01/09/2012 8:05:24 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Greetings, Like you, I don't have a ton of extra time but I do want to read on the most promising examples of LENR so if you get time after work, would you please point me in the correct direction? I've been perusing the LENR-CANR.org site but I would like to zero in on the most promising.

Three questions though. Forget whether it's real or not, they're seeing something so lets assume it is real. With what you know, say in twenty years, are we all going to have home based LENR systems or is it going to be on the grid or both keeping in mind our wonderful NRC.

I've spent some free time skimming the Larsen-Widom theory and it seems that there is a simple way to prove it occurs and that is helium output, is that correct? When I've got time I'll read the whole thing.

Do any of the successful LENR experiments mentioned in the above posting, do any start with radioactive materiel? And, I know this sounds stupid but, can you drink heavy water?

Back in '89 it was easy to suppress P&F but now too many are involved. I hope for LENR's sake, Rossi has something or it will have a serious negative effect on getting funding for this work since labs seem to be in a vicious competition to get funding, especially after seeing what they did to Taleyarkhan not to mention what MIT did. I'm no believer in Peak Oil seeing as how previously played out wells seem to be refilling themselves but this is just what we need although I wouldn't have a problem if they went on a crash building program for 100 already proven fission reactors.

Although this is only opinion and everyone already knows everyone else's opinion and facts on Rossi so it would be better to not start another 100 post flame war where we just go back and forth. But, I feel that Rossi owes it to these other researchers to prove his device once and for all. He'll still get credit and probably an incredible amount of money as well as funding for a complete lab.

I would so much like this to be real, even if it takes another twenty years to get it commercially viable.

16 posted on 01/09/2012 9:02:00 AM 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: Lazamataz
Sure as h*ll seems like it doesn't it. Unless he's planning on moving to another country, does he realize he'll have to live with the outcome of his policies like the rest of us? Just because he's rich won't help in the long run, when there's nothing on the store shelves.

We'll see how popular he is then, especially if he's still living high on the hog (which can't last forever) while everyone else is living on soup, does he not realize even his supporters don't want to starve and live in a crime zone?

I remember reading that when the Deutsche Mark was so devalued it took a billion marks to buy a loaf of bread. One report said that someone had abandoned a basket full of marks to steal the basket.

17 posted on 01/09/2012 9:12:14 AM 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 10 | View Replies]

To: Lx
"Greetings, Like you, I don't have a ton of extra time but I do want to read on the most promising examples of LENR so if you get time after work, would you please point me in the correct direction? I've been perusing the LENR-CANR.org site but I would like to zero in on the most promising."

The way I would do it is to take the researchers that Celani mentions in the abstract, and look up their papers on LENR-CANR.org. Work that impresses a "cold fusion physicist" (which Celani is), is probably a better measure of "what's important" than my opinion would be.

"Three questions though. Forget whether it's real or not, they're seeing something so lets assume it is real. With what you know, say in twenty years, are we all going to have home based LENR systems or is it going to be on the grid or both keeping in mind our wonderful NRC.

Given the very recent data coming from the top researchers, even if Rossi ultimately proves to be a fraud, I think we will have practical CF devices, and with a much shorter time frame than 20 years out. Whether they will be "on the grid" or "become the grid" is an economical question that I don't feel qualified to comment on.

"I've spent some free time skimming the Larsen-Widom theory and it seems that there is a simple way to prove it occurs and that is helium output, is that correct? When I've got time I'll read the whole thing."

I haven't spent a whole lot of time on Larsen-Widom theory, because I'm not much of a theorist. BUT, AFAIK, every CF researcher who has bothered to look for helium has found it, and in signficantly higher levels than in "blank runs"). Heat and helium seem to be two of the few "very repeatable" things about CF experments.

"Do any of the successful LENR experiments mentioned in the above posting, do any start with radioactive materiel? And, I know this sounds stupid but, can you drink heavy water?"

I'm not aware of anybody who has tried using tritiated water as a "fuel" either in an electrolytic or gas-loaded cell. I suspect probably someone in the DOD has and, if done, is probably classified "top secret". Yes, you "can" drink heavy water (at least in small amounts). I've seen it postulated that if you got enough of it, that it could screw up the kinetics of enzymatic reactions enough to make you very ill (or very dead).

"Back in '89 it was easy to suppress P&F but now too many are involved. I hope for LENR's sake, Rossi has something or it will have a serious negative effect on getting funding for this work since labs seem to be in a vicious competition to get funding, especially after seeing what they did to Taleyarkhan not to mention what MIT did. I'm no believer in Peak Oil seeing as how previously played out wells seem to be refilling themselves but this is just what we need although I wouldn't have a problem if they went on a crash building program for 100 already proven fission reactors.

Even more important than funding, Rossi has drawn the other researchers back out of hiding and given overall CF research at least a SMALL amount of favorable response.

I think a lot of these guys (cf. Piantelli) have just been sitting on positive results because they didn't want to face the "P&F gauntlet". Rossi has given them the cover to "go public".

"Although this is only opinion and everyone already knows everyone else's opinion and facts on Rossi so it would be better to not start another 100 post flame war where we just go back and forth. But, I feel that Rossi owes it to these other researchers to prove his device once and for all. He'll still get credit and probably an incredible amount of money as well as funding for a complete lab.

I agree, but Rossi disagrees, and he has the ultimate trump cards. But given his new position on "consumer" E-cats, he's gonna have to open up to "somebody" sooner or later.

Regulatory agencies, if nobody else.

"I would so much like this to be real, even if it takes another twenty years to get it commercially viable.

Yup. I want our descendants to have the "high energy" future, not the "back to the caves" one that the greens want.

18 posted on 01/09/2012 9:24:17 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lx
Unless he's planning on moving to another country, does he realize he'll have to live with the outcome of his policies like the rest of us?

Castro didn't need to. Mugabe, Stalin, Kim Il Jung, they all didn't need to.

He could simply take over, and there'd be no need to.

19 posted on 01/09/2012 10:10:07 AM PST by Lazamataz (Every single decision Obama makes is to harm America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Photobucket

The competition.
20 posted on 01/09/2012 10:17:57 AM PST by ZX12R (FUBO GTFO 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

All of the dictators you mentioned came from countries that were ripe for revolution. Then after one generation, everyone grew up in that society and didn’t know anything better.

Are you telling me YOU would sit and let O take over, seriously? I doubt it and it’s not just you, it’s anyone free who would be oppressed.

People thought the Clinton’s wouldn’t leave; leftists whackjobs thought Bush wasn’t going to leave and that he was going to put people in FEMA camps.

I think even the left is getting tired of O. All he has left is the adoring press. Do you think people that are out of work, lost their house and see their buying power disintegrate are going to support and O dictatorship, doubt it.


21 posted on 01/09/2012 10:36:22 AM 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 19 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Nevertheless, we believe that so many evidences have been collected by serious Scientists up to now, that the reality of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions may be soon acknowledged by the whole scientific community, opening the way towards the fully exploration of their potential for practical applications and long term sustainability of this, practically infinite, energy source.

The author cites quantity, but the problem is a lack of quality. The "many evidences" lack consistency and predictability that would imply a workable underlying theory.

The article starts off with a mention of catalyzed muon fusion, which is real and scientifically accepted. It was explained theoretically within a year of its observation with technology from over 50 years ago. Compare that with the wheel spinning and fraud that surrounds modern cold fusion.

22 posted on 01/09/2012 2:06:17 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
"The article starts off with a mention of catalyzed muon fusion, which is real and scientifically accepted. It was explained theoretically within a year of its observation with technology from over 50 years ago. Compare that with the wheel spinning and fraud that surrounds modern cold fusion."

There has been only ONE proven instance of fraud in cold fusion research. "If" Rossi is shown to be fraudulent, he will be #2.

23 posted on 01/09/2012 3:14:47 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

“The author cites quantity, but the problem is a lack of quality. The “many evidences” lack consistency and predictability that would imply a workable underlying theory.”

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVproceeding.pdf

Quote from the above:

“It can no longer be asserted rationally that there no heat effect in any of the very large number of experiments reported here and elsewhere [5], or that the effect is the
result of (unknown) energy storage or (unseen) chemistry. Also, at this point, any claim that the Fleischmann-Pons Effect is “irreproducible” is not only unsound, it is unscientific. Where and when we are capable of reproducing all parameters critical to the effect, we reproduce the
effect.”

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVproceedinga.pdf

You are ignorant. Educate yourself.


24 posted on 01/09/2012 3:57:39 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Also, at this point, any claim that the Fleischmann-Pons Effect is “irreproducible” is not only unsound, it is unscientific. Where and when we are capable of reproducing all parameters critical to the effect, we reproduce the effect.”

The FP Effect is variable and anomalous. No one is able to accurately calculate energy output.

You are ignorant. Educate yourself.

Stop twisting what I've said.

25 posted on 01/09/2012 6:08:57 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 24 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
There has been only ONE proven instance of fraud in cold fusion research. "If" Rossi is shown to be fraudulent, he will be #2.

Sure. We'll put Rossi in the "Nothing but hype," "Misleading rumors," "Mystery customers," and "Crappy demos (thanks Kevmo)" categories until he's hauled off to jail AGAIN.

26 posted on 01/09/2012 6:17:55 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 23 | View Replies]

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

Thanks for posting this, WW

The Cold Fusion Ping List

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


27 posted on 01/09/2012 8:44:54 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: Moonman62
"The FP Effect is variable and anomalous. No one is able to accurately calculate energy output."

The ability to "accurately calculate energy output" is irrelevant to the reality of the effect. I doubt that even today the folks doing research in ceramic superconductors can predict the properties of any given batch of materials.

"Stop twisting what I've said."

I've "twisted" nothing. You ARE ignorant, and need to study the science of the situation. At this point, I'm not assuming that you are also stupid. THAT will reveal itself when you refuse to study the evidence. But I have my suspicions on the subject.

28 posted on 01/10/2012 5:10:46 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
The ability to "accurately calculate energy output" is irrelevant to the reality of the effect.

The reality is the effect is variable, inconsistent, and unexplained, except where further study was done and the experiments were found to be bad or there were measurement errors.

At least with superconductors, there is accepted theory. They can go back and look at a batch and figure out what's different about it, if there are variable results.

"Reproducing" anomalous results is nothing special. It's like calling somebody ignorant and stupid. Any hack can do it.

29 posted on 01/10/2012 6:30:42 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 28 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"The reality is the effect is variable, inconsistent, and unexplained, except where further study was done and the experiments were found to be bad or there were measurement errors."

Yeah, that is the standard refrain of the psycho-skeptic crowd. It happens not to be true.

"At least with superconductors, there is accepted theory. They can go back and look at a batch and figure out what's different about it, if there are variable results."

LOL, ssuuuurre they can. They can just do an ab initio calculation and arrive at a result. Balderdash.

""Reproducing" anomalous results is nothing special.

"Reproducing" anomalous results is precisely what science is all about. That comes first. "Theory" and calculation follow along after, sometimes much later. Which is why I can't believe that you have any significant background in science. I can't imagine even a BS graduate in one of the "hard sciences" making such a comment, much less believing it.

"It's like calling somebody ignorant and stupid. Any hack can do it. "

Yeah, but it takes someone special to actually BE both ignorant and stupid. Ignorance is correctable. Stupidity is refusing to correct ignorance.

30 posted on 01/10/2012 5:00:25 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Muon catalyzed cold fusion was predicted in the early 1950's. Once it was observed, it only took a year to explain it with a theory. If it weren't for the fact that it consumes more energy than it produces (and the reason for that is exactly understood), it would be in wide use today.

And then there is the object of your obsession, modern cold fusion, after more than 20 years its singular superstar is an ex-con from Italy with a tendency for incomprehensible tirades. I hope you don't get cold waiting in line at the Home Depot for your ecat.

31 posted on 01/10/2012 5:33:41 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 30 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"And then there is the object of your obsession, modern cold fusion, after more than 20 years its singular superstar is an ex-con from Italy with a tendency for incomprehensible tirades. I hope you don't get cold waiting in line at the Home Depot for your ecat."

Thus speaks ignorance. Have you read EVEN ONE actual scientific paper on ANY cold fusion experiment? Science isn't about "superstars", it's about experimental data (NOT math models). This is what Einstein, Feynmann, and every HONEST scientific researcher knows and says.

Read McKubre's summary of the history of CF research in the Foreword of the ICCF conference proceedings: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVproceeding.pdf For good or ill, doing a successful electrolysis CF experiment if difficult in the extreme. Experiments in ceramic superconductors are child's play by comparison.

And this is in addition to a subset of the scientific community of patho/psycho skeptics throwing sand in the gears of the machinery by indulging in "political science" (tenure denial, grant denial, etc.) and fraudulent experiments (MIT).

32 posted on 01/11/2012 5:08:38 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Pretty good discussion here until the flat-earth loon showed up.


33 posted on 01/11/2012 6:44:33 AM PST by citizen (Decide, Conservatives: Do you want to beat Mitt Romney more than Obama? IMO, we can't do both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Science isn't about "superstars", it's about experimental data (NOT math models).

Then why do 99% of the threads you and Kevmo post mention Rossi?

34 posted on 01/11/2012 7:51:17 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 32 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Read McKubre's summary of the history of CF research in the Foreword of the ICCF conference proceedings: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ViolanteVproceeding.pdf For good or ill, doing a successful electrolysis CF experiment if difficult in the extreme. Experiments in ceramic superconductors are child's play by comparison.

Kevmo likes to cite over 14,000 CF experiments from his Chinese source. They can't be all that difficult.

You believe Rossi built a successful device in his garage. Once again, it can't be that difficult.

35 posted on 01/11/2012 7:54:11 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 32 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Have you read EVEN ONE actual scientific paper on ANY cold fusion experiment?

I've read ever paper that calls CF critics psycho-skeptics and idiots the way you do.

36 posted on 01/11/2012 7:58:10 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 32 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"Then why do 99% of the threads you and Kevmo post mention Rossi?"

Perhaps because he is the only one that is getting reported on?? Fortunately, that is now changing and other less "Edisonian" researchers are coming out of the woodwork.

37 posted on 01/11/2012 8:05:41 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"Kevmo likes to cite over 14,000 CF experiments from his Chinese source. They can't be all that difficult."

I see you still suffer from reading comprehension problems. If you will note, I referred to electrolysis CF experiments.

"You believe Rossi built a successful device in his garage. Once again, it can't be that difficult."

Rossi used a gas-loading approach. Apparently, once you get away from electrolysis, it "is" that easy. All the "hot news" reports of late are using "gas-loading".

38 posted on 01/11/2012 8:10:16 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"I've read ever paper that calls CF critics psycho-skeptics and idiots the way you do."

I'll take that as an affirmative answer that you've never read a CF scientific paper. Scientists use slightly more esoteric language when calling a fellow researcher an idiot in a peer-reviewed paper. This is a discussion forum. I use the same sort of language that you psycho-skeptics do.

39 posted on 01/11/2012 8:13:12 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Apparently, once you get away from electrolysis, it "is" that easy. All the "hot news" reports of late are using "gas-loading".

So where are the rate of reaction calculations that can predict energy output? Putting CF, LENR, or whatever you want to call it on the same footing as 50 year old muon catalyzed cold fusion isn't too much to ask. That's the point I keep trying to make which you keep sidestepping with personal attacks for some reason.

40 posted on 01/11/2012 11:26:54 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 38 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"So where are the rate of reaction calculations that can predict energy output? Putting CF, LENR, or whatever you want to call it on the same footing as 50 year old muon catalyzed cold fusion isn't too much to ask. That's the point I keep trying to make which you keep sidestepping with personal attacks for some reason.

I've answered it more than once. You simply refuse to accept the answer. So you can stop asking. The simple fact is that you are not on these threads to find out what the truth is one way or another, you're simply here to throw verbal bombs at LENR.

41 posted on 01/11/2012 4:34:26 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

You haven’t answered the question with a yes or no. Are there rates of reaction calculations that can accurately predict energy output for cold fusion (other than the muon kind)?


42 posted on 01/11/2012 6:27:10 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 41 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"You haven’t answered the question with a yes or no. Are there rates of reaction calculations that can accurately predict energy output for cold fusion (other than the muon kind)?

And I'm not about to, because it is a question of no scientific meaning. But "do" feel free to hold your breath while waiting.

43 posted on 01/12/2012 7:39:04 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Lx; Wonder Warthog
Catching both of you at the same time ~ the LENR scene has not had much news over the Holiday period so I spent time studying up on gold.

Not the atomic structure, but just how to find it, how to acquire it in sufficient quantities to be worthwhile, and what to do with it once you've got it.

My focus was on identifying old Spanish gold source areas in the Eastern United States ~ which have been abandoned for the last 400 years ~ so I could go tap into some of this stuff while it's at $1500 an ounce.

Recently some of that work has paid off in a surprising way ~ and this is not an investment offer. But it did pay off.

Alas, the problem is most of the gold is in the form of a substance called GOLD FLOUR.

As you know gold has one isotope. On the other hand due to its very special characteristics it has very small molecules ~ it is a regular practice to make 2 molecule thick gold films on satellites to protect them from cosmic rays ~

Turns out GOLD FLOUR can be so fine that gold will literally float on water. The Vanderwall forces are so strong at a certain small size that the gold is unable to break through the surface tension of the water at its interface with the atmosphere.

A great deal of the American Midwest is covered with a thin film of GOLD FLOUR rapidly making its way to the center of the Earth ~ and since its deposition some 12,500 years ago it's now anywhere from 6 inches to 18 inches deep!

You can spend some time if you want digging up all the statistical and scientific details regarding this deposition by looking up Comet Hits Canada in 12500 BC.

Good luck. There are some who don't believeit happened but the geological astronomers have found the gold film and traced the diamonds associated with it back to a site in Ontario immediately under the strike or explosion.

Amazing something like that has its own professional detractor group.

Now, back to GOLD FLOUR, this stuff was extracted way back when in Egypt and Arabia, and possibly Anatolia through the use of fresh, greasy animal hides or a substance like paper pulp. Once you've found a site showing a trace all you need to do is divert the surface of the water to a device that knocks the gold to the bottom ~ come back in 10 years and you have a bunch of it that's almost invisible.

I have an idea that the North American Indians managed to mine a vast quantity of gold this way, but how did they do it?

Any ideas how you can manipulate very wet nano particles ('cause that's what they are) so they clump or cluster where they can be extracted with more modern gold mining equipment?

44 posted on 01/19/2012 8:05:30 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
"Now, back to GOLD FLOUR, this stuff was extracted way back when in Egypt and Arabia, and possibly Anatolia through the use of fresh, greasy animal hides or a substance like paper pulp."

This is the factual basis for the "Jason's fleece" episode in Greek "mythology" (which, in some cases, wasn't all that mythical). It was the lanolin in the wool (combined, of course, with the "high" surface area that the wool fibers made available) that collected the finely divided material.

"Any ideas how you can manipulate very wet nano particles ('cause that's what they are) so they clump or cluster where they can be extracted with more modern gold mining equipment?"

My best guess would be the addition of one or other surfactants, and then blowing air through the resulting solution. The particles "should" adhere to the bubbles, and can be "skimmed off" the surface by a weir. Process is called "flotation". But that summary about exhausts my store of info in the area.

45 posted on 01/20/2012 5:41:41 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
As you know gold has one isotope. On the other hand due to its very special characteristics it has very small molecules ~ it is a regular practice to make 2 molecule thick gold films on satellites to protect them from cosmic rays ~

Turns out GOLD FLOUR can be so fine that gold will literally float on water. The Vanderwall forces are so strong at a certain small size that the gold is unable to break through the surface tension of the water at its interface with the atmosphere.

Well, I've seen the gold leaf they use for painting and it is far thinner than aluminum foil. You can make things that aren't supposed to float on water float by gently setting them in the water. This won't work with an anvil.

Now, back to GOLD FLOUR, this stuff was extracted way back when in Egypt and Arabia, and possibly Anatolia through the use of fresh, greasy animal hides or a substance like paper pulp. Once you've found a site showing a trace all you need to do is divert the surface of the water to a device that knocks the gold to the bottom ~ come back in 10 years and you have a bunch of it that's almost invisible.

Why would it be invisible? I would think if you have enough of it, you would see it. Spill a tiny amount of flour on a counter and you can barely see it but pour the whole bag out and you can easily see it.

Why is it only on the East coast? I'm less than 30 minutes from Sutter's mill and they discovered plenty of gold there.

46 posted on 01/20/2012 7:50:46 AM 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 44 | View Replies]

To: Lx

The goldfields of California are highly controlled. The ones in the Midwest aren’t!


47 posted on 01/20/2012 8:02:58 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lx
GOLD FLOUR can be seen as a sort of a sheen ~ which is how you find it. I was referring to extraction methods like panning ~ it just doesn't "show" and you have this Vanderwaals forces problem where they are very strong given the small size of the particles. They do not naturally clump! That keeps them spread apart ~ and difficult to detect, even though there may be gazillions of particles.

Obviously once you get it clumped and in one flask you are going to see it.

48 posted on 01/20/2012 8:09:31 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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

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