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:
The Cold Fusion/LENR Ping List
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles
Forbes article link:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-
Or. They aren't really there. Your "extraordinarily sensitive" instruments are providing you with false data.
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.”
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!!!
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.
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?
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.
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 ...
Familiarize yourself with the evidence
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Then where is my hot fusion car? You demand it for cold fusion.
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.
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.
They'll be green because they won't produce enough energy (probably zero) to be useful.
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.