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

Skip to comments.

Tiny Nuclear Reactions Inside Compact Fluorescent Bulbs?
Vortex-L / Forbes ^ | 3/14/2013 | Jeff McMahon

Posted on 03/14/2013 1:27:00 PM PDT by Kevmo

Tiny Nuclear Reactions Inside Compact Fluorescent Bulbs?

Harmless low-energy nuclear reactions may be taking place routinely inside of compact fluorescent lightbulbs, according to a physicist whose theories have NASA researchers abuzz with the prospect of cheap, non-polluting energy.

Nuclear reactions may be responsible for an unusual fingerprint of mercury isotopes in used fluorescents that can identify environmental pollution from the bulbs, said Lewis Larsen, a Chicago physicist associated with the Widom-Larsen Theory, which explores slow nuclear reactions among elements that are not radioactive.

“Unbeknownst to the general public, dynamically active nuclear processes are presently occurring in tens of millions of households worldwide,” Larsen told me.

“Fortunately, there aren’t any radiological health risks associated with CFLs because no hard radiation is emitted from them, ” Larsen said, “ and no environmentally hazardous, long-lived radioactive isotopes are typically created by LENRs (low energy nuclear reactions).”

Larsen has suspected low energy nuclear reactions occur in CFLs, he told me, and is encouraged by a February study of used bulbs that found isotopes of mercury that more conventional theories cannot explain.

NASA: A Nuclear Reactor To Replace Your Water Heater Jeff McMahonContributor

The authors of that study analyzed used fluorescent bulbs looking for a unique fingerprint of mercury isotopes. If they could find a unique fingerprint, researchers could identify mercury pollution in the environment that comes from discarded fluorescents:

“All fluorescent lamps use mercury (Hg) and can be a source of Hg to the environment when broken,” write the authors, led by Chris Mead of Arizona State University’s Global Institute of Sustainability, in a February issue of Environmental Science and Technology (subscription required).

As compact fluorescents command a larger share of the lighting market, the researchers expect mercury pollution from the bulbs to increase:

“ “The share of atmospheric anthropogenic Hg emissions represented by fluorescent lightbulbs in the United States is 1–5 percent. Only a third of fluorescent lightbulbs are recycled. As fluorescent lighting continues to supplant incandescent lighting, and as emissions from large point sources of Hg, such as coal-fired power plants and municipal waste incinerators are reduced, fluorescents will become an increasingly important source of Hg to the environment. Therefore, a method to detect and quantify Hg derived from fluorescents would be very useful.”

The researchers found their unique fingerprint for mercury from fluorescent bulbs. But they can’t explain why it’s so unique:

“The trapped Hg of used CFL show unusually large isotopic fractionation (the distribution of mercury into its various isotopes), the pattern of which is entirely different from that which has been observed in previous Hg isotope research aside from intentional isotope enrichment.”

Larsen believes he knows why the mercury isotopes in used CFLs are different:

“When viewed through the conceptual lens of the Widom-Larsen theory, Mead et al.’s carefully collected Hg isotope data suggests that low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) transmutations may actually be occurring at extremely low rates in CFLs during normal operation,” he said.

And that should make the idea of home nuclear reactors less frightening, Larsen said.

“If this outstanding new data is substantiated by further experimentation, it provides yet more proof that LENRs are likely to be a truly ‘green,’ safe nuclear technology.”

Larsen hopes to demonstrate that low-energy nuclear reactions are safe, green and commonplace in part to distinguish them from fission reactions that produce dangerous ionizing radiation in conventional reactors. He has found evidence of LENRs occurring in lithium-ion batteries, catalytic converters, and naturally in bacterial processes and lightning.

Many researchers, including NASA scientists, are working on low-energy nuclear reactors that use non-hazardous fuels like nickel and hydrogen to produce energy and non hazardous by-products, like copper. I discuss the reactors in more detail in a prior post, NASA: A Nuclear Reactor To Replace Your Water Heater.

But if low energy nuclear reactions are so commonplace, why haven’t scientists noticed them before? In part because they haven’t looked. LENR activity is subtle, according to Larsen, and it “can only be readily detected and measured through the use of extraordinarily sensitive mass spectroscopy techniques on stable isotopes.”

“Consequently, for nearly 100 years LENR processes have effectively been hidden in plain sight from the vast majority of the scientific community.”

READ MORE:


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: cmns; coldfusion; lanr; lenr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last
Interesting but extremely doubtful.
1 posted on 03/14/2013 1:27:00 PM PDT 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/LENR Ping List

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


http://lenr-canr.org/

Forbes article link:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/03/14/tiny-nuclear-reactions-inside-compact-fluorescent-bulbs/

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex- href=”mailto:l@eskimo.com”>l@eskimo.com/msg77883.html


2 posted on 03/14/2013 1:29:05 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
“Consequently, for nearly 100 years LENR processes have effectively been hidden in plain sight from the vast majority of the scientific community.”

Or. They aren't really there. Your "extraordinarily sensitive" instruments are providing you with false data.

3 posted on 03/14/2013 1:29:44 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

From the sentence just before your quote:

But if low energy nuclear reactions are so commonplace, why haven’t scientists noticed them before? In part because they haven’t looked. LENR activity is subtle, according to Larsen, and it “can only be readily detected and measured through the use of extraordinarily sensitive mass spectroscopy techniques on stable isotopes.”


4 posted on 03/14/2013 1:33:11 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Sounds much, much more dangerous than fracking.

I should do a documentary about all the radiation we’re exposing our children to.

Then...

WE SHOULD BAN ‘EM!!!


5 posted on 03/14/2013 1:41:32 PM PDT by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Right. My point. If your instruments are sensitive enough, they may very well be “measuring” things that aren’t really there.

I will be happy to believe in LENR when someone drives a car across the country or fuels a power plant with one.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But I’m more than willing to be convinced if that evidence is supplied.


6 posted on 03/14/2013 1:52:33 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

So, is this guy saying that the mercury already present in these things is being transmuted to something else, and then decaying back to mercury again?


7 posted on 03/14/2013 1:57:03 PM PDT by wolfpat (Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a child. -- Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Really? I doubt very much that a simple light bulb has enough energy density to cause a nuclear reaction in a heavy element like Mercury.
Could there be something in the refining, manufacturing or measuring process that favors certain isotopes?
Maybe the bulb is leaking more of the "other" (lighter?) isotope. The article does not say what the isotopes are.
Have they compared new and old bulbs.
Or better yet, a large number of used and unused bulbs from the same batch?

8 posted on 03/14/2013 2:02:02 PM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I just have visions about some scientist adding a tiny copper or metal wire to the inside and creating a super powerful bulb. He then goes on to put thousands of the modified bulbs and builds a terrawatt scale laser.


9 posted on 03/14/2013 2:05:21 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I will be happy to believe in LENR when someone drives a car across the country or fuels a power plant with one.
***Raising the bar on cold fusion while lowering the bar on hot fusion. To date, cold fusion experiments have generated hundreds of MJoules over several months while the greatest Tokomak has operated for a few seconds and generated 6MJoules. Where is my hot fusion powered car?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
***The Anomalous Heat Effect has been replicated more than 14,000 times. It is no longer an extraordinary claim. Admittedly, it is difficult to reproduce, but it has been replicated.

But I’m more than willing to be convinced if that evidence is supplied.
***Read Baudette’s book. Read the papers at lenr-canr.org

Amazon.com: Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed ...

http://www.amazon.com/Excess-Heat-Fusion-Research-Prevailed/dp/0967854830 - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight

Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed (2nd Edition) [Charles G. ... Mr. Baudette has done a excellent job of presenting the fact and history of this ...

http://lenr-canr.org/

Familiarize yourself with the evidence


10 posted on 03/14/2013 2:07:44 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Right. Measuring something is not any kind of definitive evidence. Scientists make measurement errors all the time. If it can’t be demonstrated, replicated, and eventually put into practical use, it might as well be fairy dust we are talking about.


11 posted on 03/14/2013 2:12:39 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

You know, I actually am reasonable familiar with the issue.

I am not a fan of hot fusion as a power source, so I’m not raising or lowering any bars at all. Hot fusion has been 20 or 30 years away for as long as I can remember, which is something over 40 years.

Look, the claim is not that there are some hard to detect and explain anomalous effects being found. The article itself claims that these are possible energy sources.

That’s what I want to see proven, not that somebody can detect something with sensitive instruments.

Oddly enough, I think if this were to work out, it would require us to re-examine our entire theory of physics, which might produce even greater value than just a cheap source of energy.


12 posted on 03/14/2013 2:14:44 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

“Raising the bar on cold fusion while lowering the bar on hot fusion.”

Not by a long shot. You forget we already have working fusion generators everywhere in nature, so building one from scratch isn’t even necessarily to demonstrate the principle.


13 posted on 03/14/2013 2:16:29 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

I work with sensitive instruments, though nothing like what these guys probably use, so I have some idea of the challenges associated with calibration, vibration, temperature and humidity changes, static electricity, etc., etc.

It is not nearly as simple as most people think to make extraordinarily precise accurate measurements. In fact, most digital devices “lie” to people.

For instance, I have a digital hygrometer (relative humidity) that reads out in 0.1% increments. Which leads the average person to think it’s accurate to 0.1%.

In fact, it is actually only accurate within a plus or minus 2% range. And that’s from about 20% to 80%. Above or below that middle range the accuracy drops off quickly. And the 2% assumes recent calibration.

I believe the same is true of many instruments.


14 posted on 03/14/2013 2:21:25 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Look, the claim is not that there are some hard to detect and explain anomalous effects being found.
***That is exactly the claim behind LENR. This article itself is just the latest in a series of articles on LENR on FR.

If this article were the magic bullet which proves or disproves the W-L theory, then I’d be pushing hard to have it tested. But W-L would just wiggle away with word salad and weaseling techniques if it turned out that CFLs did not have tiny LENR reactions. That likelihood is about 95% in my estimation.

But what if someone went to the trouble of testing this assertion and it turned out to be the ‘proof’ that skeptics have demanded for LENR all along? It is worth testing the assertion of this article.


15 posted on 03/14/2013 2:21:44 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Then where is my hot fusion car? You demand it for cold fusion.


16 posted on 03/14/2013 2:22:31 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I quite agree it is worth testing. If LENR turns out to exist, it would require us to reexamine our entire understanding of physics, and we might discover a lot of other valuable stuff as a result.

It’s especially worth testing because compared to high-energy physics research it is essentially free.

You can’t do modern high-energy physics research without spending hundreds of millions to tens of billions of dollars.


17 posted on 03/14/2013 2:24:42 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I quite agree it is worth testing. If LENR turns out to exist, it would require us to reexamine our entire understanding of physics, and we might discover a lot of other valuable stuff as a result.
***The W-L theory doesn’t really require such an examination, it is almost completely conventional physics.

It’s especially worth testing because compared to high-energy physics research it is essentially free. You can’t do modern high-energy physics research without spending hundreds of millions to tens of billions of dollars.
***These are the things I’ve been saying about LENR but the anti-science LENR truther crowd is against even that. When the dust settles after these decades of chasing a hot fusion chimera, no doubt the truther crowd will be claiming they were pro-LENR & pro-science all along. It’s just human nature.


18 posted on 03/14/2013 2:29:14 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Next up is an article about cold fusion taking place when mints are chewed in the dark. NASA scientists are abuzz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiwLJ17XwLw

19 posted on 03/14/2013 2:34:11 PM PDT 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: Kevmo
“If this outstanding new data is substantiated by further experimentation, it provides yet more proof that LENRs are likely to be a truly ‘green,’ safe nuclear technology.”

They'll be green because they won't produce enough energy (probably zero) to be useful.

20 posted on 03/14/2013 2:39:44 PM PDT 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: Kevmo

“You demand it for cold fusion.”

If I do, then quote me on it, otherwise stick it in your tailpipe.


21 posted on 03/14/2013 3:53:32 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

“These are the things I’ve been saying about LENR but the anti-science LENR truther crowd is against even that.”

I have to call shenanigans on that one. Nobody is raging against legitimate research, people have just been skeptical of unsubstantiated claims made by non-scientists with a long history of fraud, which you are fond of posting here.


22 posted on 03/14/2013 3:56:21 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Quite.

Which is where the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” meme comes into play.


23 posted on 03/14/2013 4:06:06 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

You’re right. We have been told over and over for years that low energy nuclear reactions(cold fusion)were not possible. Careers have been destoyed for just saying maybe it is possible so if it turns out to be true all these scientists who called it sci fi dreams should be fired. And I mean every one of them. Clean out all the colleges and labs and start over with people who have open minds.


24 posted on 03/14/2013 4:14:20 PM PDT by cdpap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Kevmo: “You demand it for cold fusion.”

Boogieman: If I do, then quote me on it, otherwise stick it in your tailpipe.

Here it is:


From post #10 upthread:
Sherman Logan: I will be happy to believe in LENR when someone drives a car across the country or fuels a power plant with one.
***Kevmo: Raising the bar on cold fusion while lowering the bar on hot fusion. To date, cold fusion experiments have generated hundreds of MJoules over several months while the greatest Tokomak has operated for a few seconds and generated 6MJoules. Where is my hot fusion powered car?

Post #14, you step in and reinforce Sherman’s logical fallacy with a followup of your own:

To: Kevmo

“Raising the bar on cold fusion while lowering the bar on hot fusion.”

Not by a long shot. You forget we already have working fusion generators everywhere in nature, so building one from scratch isn’t even necessarily to demonstrate the principle.

13 posted on Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:16:29 PM by Boogieman


So... stick that in your tailpipe... of your hotfusion car.


25 posted on 03/14/2013 4:23:23 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19


26 posted on 03/14/2013 4:25:02 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19


27 posted on 03/14/2013 4:25:22 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Nobody is raging against legitimate research,
***Sure they have. Just look through these LENR threads to see the usual skeptopaths spewing out their anti-science positions.


28 posted on 03/14/2013 4:26:46 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

people have just been skeptical of unsubstantiated claims made by non-scientists with a long history of fraud,
***And exactly how many of those 14,700 replications are within those “claims made by non-scientists”?

which you are fond of posting here.
***When was the last time I posted an article focused on such “non-scientists” with long histories of fraud? Months. But the anti-science LENR crowd continues in its invective. My turn to call shenanigans.

Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19


29 posted on 03/14/2013 4:29:15 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cdpap

Science doesn’t work that way.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

Max Planck:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Mit einem Bildnis und der von Max von Laue gehaltenen Traueransprache., Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag, (Leipzig 1948), p. 22, as translated in Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp.33-34 (as cited in T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

Paraphrased variants:
Die Wahrheit triumphiert nie, ihre Gegner sterben nur aus. Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.

Science advances one funeral at a time.


30 posted on 03/14/2013 4:33:43 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Then where is my hot fusion car? You demand it for cold fusion.

Got that covered already - check out solar powered cars. Powered by HOT FUSION energy.

31 posted on 03/14/2013 6:45:02 PM PDT by no-s (when democracy is displaced by tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: no-s

Yeah, right... and they output skittles from the tailpipe, just like unicorns.


32 posted on 03/14/2013 6:48:08 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"Your "extraordinarily sensitive" instruments are providing you with false data."

Unlikely in the extreme. This is mass spec providing the analytical results. Nothing esoteric about it at all. MS is well understood, as are the factors that affect it.

33 posted on 03/14/2013 6:50:18 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: no-s
Got that covered already - check out solar powered cars. Powered by HOT FUSION energy.

LOL! You nailed him.

34 posted on 03/14/2013 6:53:11 PM PDT 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: Sherman Logan
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

No, actually they don't. The same criteria apply to all science phenomena. This phrase originated among the career skeptics to put down science-based research into paranormal phenomena. It has zip to do with legitimate science.

"But I’m more than willing to be convinced if that evidence is supplied.

One well-done experiment (or series of experiments) and one replication of those experiments at a different lab are all that is necessary.

35 posted on 03/14/2013 7:01:39 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
The same criteria apply to all science phenomena.

Disagree. Displacing a well-grounded scientific consensus with a totally new explanation of observed phenomena requires, and IMO should require, more solid evidence than a claim with less evidence already in existence on the other side.

36 posted on 03/14/2013 7:08:51 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo; Sherman Logan
Acetylene welding became quite big time in the marketplace about 1917. It was put to use immediately in the production of automobiles.

If you are old enough you would have seen numerous abandoned hulks just rusting away awaiting the day iron prices rose high enough to make their recovery economically feasible.

Yes, you would have seen them rusting away EVERYWHERE but the door hinges, or any other part of the body, that had been welded with an acetylene torch.

None checked out why that had happened until a young lady in the DC area won science fair after science fair demonstrating a technique for creating DIAMOND FILM with nothing more than a poorly tuned acetylene torch.

That method has since been put to work welding small diamonds together into large diamonds!

So, yes, quite ordinary processes which are quite commonly observed by great scientists and trash haulers alike can be totally ignored!

Now, how is it paint is actually mixed ~ been doing that one for thousands of years ~ what new wonders will be discovered as that process is subjected to intense scrutiny.

A common process that changes one isotope of mercury into several others is definitely something to look at!

37 posted on 03/14/2013 7:13:42 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Interesting info.

Thanks.


38 posted on 03/14/2013 7:18:46 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

No, actually they don't. The same criteria apply to all science phenomena. This phrase originated among the career skeptics to put down science-based research into paranormal phenomena. It has zip to do with legitimate science.

What a coincidence. Cold fusion also has zip to do with legitimate science.

39 posted on 03/14/2013 7:35:28 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
We bought tens of thousands of electronic sampling scales over a period of years ~ basic load cell/digital signal analysis and read-out items.

On our side we used the scales to weigh samples of mail (usually 10 pieces) which would give us the factor necessary to estimate the accuracy of the mailer's count.

These scales were responsible for verifying the validity of weights and piece counts on about $40 billions in postage per year. 20 years of that would come to just under $1 trillion.

The two issues for us were the precision of the reading (that is, how many hundreds of millions of current readings would be made) in how much time ~ and how to protect the scale platform from pressure differentials created by breathing and, to put it bluntly, ausfahrting!

The solution was simple ~ after so many hundred millions of measurements of current you just cut it off ~ just like that ~ and take what you get. During the act of weighing the sample, the acceleration of the mass of the sample pieces exceeded the pressure differentials from breathing, and ausfahrting ~ but ausfahrting could be controlled by telling the clerk "face the readout" while weighing the samples ~ that way, although the scale was at roughly tail high, the direction of any emissions would be away from the scale.

Differences would be obscured over the course of doing hundreds of samples per tour ~ with little deviation from the expected values. Aggregate revenues would be protected.

The answer is that precision measurements are accurate only to the extent required by the process to achieve satori in real time. This applies to all systems.

40 posted on 03/14/2013 7:35:40 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: no-s

Larsen, the fellow referenced earlier in this article, would dispute your argument ~ that it’s hot fusion ~ the theory he contributed to says much of that light is from the corona and there a different process prevails ~ which is simply not the same as ‘hot fusion’ which goes on INSIDE the stars and which is expressed, for the most part, at non-visible light frequencies.


41 posted on 03/14/2013 7:44:01 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
The 'fraud' issue involved the italian mafia ~ with the researcher in question their victim. They are big time in the windmill business and didn't want any competition with their investment. As a consequence they actually went after all alternative energy competitors.

The mobsters involved in that have been getting rounded up lately and put on trial. I keep my eye out for some of their American associates who have made it a practice to harrass folks interested in competing alternative energy projects.

jus' sayin' eh!

42 posted on 03/14/2013 7:47:41 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

Nobody is raging against legitimate research
***You haven’t been paying attention to what your fellow anti-science truthers have been saying, even on this thread....

Cold fusion also has zip to do with legitimate science.

39 posted on Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:35:28 PM by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)


43 posted on 03/14/2013 8:25:10 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Sounds like the typical pseudo-scientific malarkey that has been surrounding cold fusion for some time. After my own little quick survey, here is a reputable retort to the theory:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43138/widom-larsen-theory

I am not an expert in nuclear physics. But clearly, the “mainstream” does not accept this. However, being trained both as a condensed matter physicist and chemist, I appreciate the appeal cold fusion, a.k.a. these days “LENR”, has for some otherwise level-headed scientist. But alas it is not energetically viable under currently accepted theories. If some mechanism exists for something like LENR, then it will have to be discovered and proven by experimental evidence, because that would represent probably the greatest breakthrough in physics since the Michelson-Morley experiment, which disproved ether and foreshadowed the quantum and Einstein relativity revolution. That is, it is a paradigm shifting crisis in conventional thinking, ala Kuhnian revolution.

And so I sound like a skeptic, which IMHO is a good scientist. Show me the evidence! However, I would not want to discourage the tinkerers and dreamers to continue their efforts to flail at convention. Ultimately that is what is required to usurp those of us who are conservative in our views ;)


44 posted on 03/14/2013 9:45:33 PM PDT by Charge Carrier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charge Carrier

Show me the evidence!
***Read Baudette’s book. Read the papers at lenr-canr.org

Amazon.com: Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed ...

http://www.amazon.com/Excess-Heat-Fusion-Research-Prevailed/dp/0967854830 - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight

Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed (2nd Edition) [Charles G. ... Mr. Baudette has done a excellent job of presenting the fact and history of this ...

http://lenr-canr.org/

Familiarize yourself with the evidence


45 posted on 03/14/2013 11:15:27 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Charge Carrier

alas it is not energetically viable under currently accepted theories.

– if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it. ~Nobel Prize Winning Nuclear Physicist Richard Feynman


46 posted on 03/14/2013 11:35:47 PM PDT by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"Disagree. Displacing a well-grounded scientific consensus with a totally new explanation of observed phenomena requires, and IMO should require, more solid evidence than a claim with less evidence already in existence on the other side."

You can disagree all you like. My position is real science, yours is pseudoscience. The "scientific consensus" is meaningless, and is basically "bandwagoning". ONE well done experiment, properly verified, is sufficient to overthrow even the most beautiful theory. See Einstein, Feinman, Schwinger, and hundreds of other "hard" scientists.

All "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" does is give scientific-SOUNDING cover for "some" supposed scientists to ignore data they don't like.

47 posted on 03/15/2013 5:04:43 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Charge Carrier
"And so I sound like a skeptic, which IMHO is a good scientist. Show me the evidence!"

I see Kevmo has already recommended Beaudette's book and the publications archive at LENR/CANR. The evidence is available.

Get back to us with your opinion after reading Beaudette.

What has impeded LENR is science politics, not lack of evidence. The "hot fusioneers" are protecting their cash cow of grant money. Nothing more, nothing less.

48 posted on 03/15/2013 5:12:45 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

“your fellow anti-science truthers”

Why should I care what you think when you lump everyone in together with your stupid Alinsky tactics, regardless of what their actual opinions are?


49 posted on 03/15/2013 6:40:26 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Yeah, right. If it was only one incident of fraud, your theory might be plausible, but alas, there are many, so it is not.


50 posted on 03/15/2013 6:43:33 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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