Posted on 03/20/2013 12:18:28 PM PDT by Kevmo
Son of cold fusion: Forbes.com returns attention to low-energy nuclear reactions
Spirited interest from two NASA scientists leads to new information about an old controversy.
March 19, 2013 Published: March 19, 2013
By Steven T. Corneliussen
At NASA, two scientists' enthusiasm for research on low-energy nuclear reactions (LENRs) has led to the production of public-relations materials. At Forbes.com, the website of the nearly century-old business magazine Forbes, the news from NASA has inspired contributor Jeff McMahon to add to the flurry of media interest seen last year at US News, Nature, and the Guardian.
Forbes.com itself lists 13 articles involving LENRs from 2011 and 2012. Now it has posted two columns by McMahon: "NASA: A nuclear reactor to replace your water heater" and "Tiny nuclear reactions inside compact fluorescent bulbs?" The water-heater piece appeared nine days after NASA posted online the public-relations write-up "News: The nuclear reactor in your basement" on 13 February.
McMahon cites and quotes Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. Bushnell is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and the Royal Aeronautical Society. His NASA Future Innovation posting "Low energy nuclear reactions, the realism and the outlook" begins by summarizing:
Although there is a quite long history of "anomalous" observations, including transmutations, the "recent" consideration of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) began in the late 80's with the Pons/Fleischmann observations and assertions regarding what they termed "Cold Fusion." However, subsequent difficulties with experimental replication and an utter lack of convincing theoretical explication forced research in this arena "underground" with minimal financial support.
The current situation is that we now have over two decades of hundreds of experiments worldwide indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input. By any rational measure, this evidence indicates something real is occurring. So, is LENR "Real?" Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse experimental evidence. And, yes—with effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is far from a "Narrow Band" set of physical phenomena.
Bushnell goes on to assert:
* Something real is happening.
* The weak interaction theories suggest what the physics might be.
* There are efforts ongoing to explore the validity of the theories.
* There are continuing Edisonian efforts to produce "devices" mainly for heat or in some cases transmutations.
* There are efforts to "certify" such devices.
* NASA LaRC [Langley Research Center] has begun LENR design studies guided by the Weak Interaction Theory.
He concludes:
No promises, but some seriously "strange" things are going on, which we may be closer to understanding and if we can optimize/engineer such, the world changes. Worldwide, it is worth far more resources than are currently being devoted to this research arena. There is a need to core down and determine "truth" and if useful, the need to engineer and apply.
McMahon also cites and quotes the two-minute NASA public-relations video "The Technology Gateway: Method for Enhancement of Surface Plasmon Polaritons to Initiate and Sustain LENR." In the clip, Joseph Zawodny, senior research scientist at NASA Langley, speaks of a"demonstrated ability to produce excess amounts of energy, cleanly, without hazardous ionizing radiation" and of the "easiest implementation," which he says would be in the home.
None of those NASA or Forbes.com materials cite scientific papers or document specific experiments.
---
Steven T. Corneliussen, a media analyst for the American Institute of Physics, monitors three national newspapers, the weeklies Nature and Science, and occasionally other publications. He has published op-eds in the Washington Post and other newspapers, has written for NASA's history program, and is a science writer at a particle-accelerator laboratory.
For spontaneous energy, my Grandpa would just have us pull his finger...
I’d love to have cold fusion actually work.
However, given that the physics standard model works to an accuracy of one part in literally millions, methinks that CF is a bunch of bull Obama.
Again, I’d LOVE to be proven wrong.
Masochist:
n.
1. Someone who is willing and tends to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.
This is a repost of a blog about other blog posts at Forbes that you’ve already posted on FR. The cold fusion astroturf network is a tangled web.
Al Gore Net Worth
How much is Al Gore worth?
Nothing says solid science like the production of PR materials.
Tom Weller nailed it:
BTW, I am a science guy but this is too true not to post...
Masochist:
n.
1. Someone who is willing and tends to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.
2. Liberals
This is more plausible than the greek guy with the Italian gizmo.
When you have reputable scientists willing to risk their reputations on what has heretofore been a career killer—then you know game is afoot.
I think the work of the dense plasma fusion scientists is closer to the mark—just judging by their degrees and pedigrees.
“However, given that the physics standard model works to an accuracy of one part in literally millions, methinks that CF is a bunch of bull Obama.”
I don’t believe the theoretical framework that the NASA folks are looking at conflicts with the Standard Model.
These highly qualified scientists are saying there are clearly unexplained phenomena and large amounts of “excess energy”. That’s well worth additional investigation.
Me, I just want my flying car. ;-)
It does.
"However, given that the physics standard model works to an accuracy of one part in literally millions, methinks that CF is a bunch of bull Obama."
The replicated experimental evidence (the only thing that matters) says differently. As Julian Schwinger put it..."the conditions prevailing in the solid state are not those of a high-temperature plasma..."
"Again, I’d LOVE to be proven wrong."
Start with Charles Beaudette's book "Excess Heat", and from there to the archive of publications at LENR/CANR. The data is available to those who actually bother to check it out.
But you won't. I have yet to run into a single skeptic on these threads who has actually bothered to look at the data.
The solution to this is open-source LENR. Who will be the Linus Torvald of LENR?
I have yet to run into a cold fusion fanboy who can defend cold fusion without telling someone to buy a book or go to someone's personal blog or website.
BTW, I did look at LENR/CANR and read the papers on NASA's work with hydrogen purifiers. Remember?
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.