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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The goldfields of California are highly controlled. The ones in the Midwest aren’t!
Obviously once you get it clumped and in one flask you are going to see it.
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.