Posted on 12/09/2013 2:23:17 PM PST by Kevmo
MIT IAP Cold Fusion 101 to run again [Translate]
The IAP course on cold fusion co-taught by Drs. Peter Hagelstein and Mitchell Swartz is scheduled to run again in 2014 for a third year in a row.
Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments will be held on campus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) January 27-January 31 at 10:30AM-1:30PM in Room 4-145. The class is sponsored by the MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department where Hagelstein is a faculty member.
In 2012, the course was well-attended and featured a JET Energy, Inc demonstration of the NANOR, a nano-material, two-terminal component that generates excess energy gain using a dry, pre-loaded hydrogen fuel. Open to the public for viewing, the NANOR ran for months in Hagelstein’s office. Massachusetts State Senator Bruce Tarr visited the campus to witness the event, and is now a supporter of the pioneer technology.
Cold Fusion Now’s Jeremy Rys attended the course in 2013 and videod the lectures throughout the week. Problems with the audio feed were lessened with a second Enhanced Audio edit by uploadJ. Watch the 2013 background and theory lectures by Peter Hagelstein here, and see the experimental and technology talks by Mitchell Swartz of JET Energy, Inc. here.
The course syllabus includes:
Excess power production in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment; lack of confirmation in early negative experiments; theoretical problems and Huizenga’s three miracles; physical chemistry of PdD; electrochemistry of PdD; loading requirements on excess power production; the nuclear ash problem and He-4 observations; approaches to theory; screening in PdD; PdD as an energetic particle detector; constraints on the alpha energy from experiment; overview of theoretical approaches; coherent energy exchange between mismatched quantum systems; coherent x-rays in the Karabut experiment and interpretation; excess power in the NiH system; Piantelli experiment; and prospects for a new small scale clean nuclear energy technology.
Independent Activities Program (IAP) is designed for MIT students wishing to learn between semesters, but enrollment is open with permission from the instructor and there is no advance registration required. For more information and to contact the instructor, visit the IAP Cold Fusion 101 course page.
Related Links
Synopsis of Cold Fusion 101 2013 [.pdf] by Gayle Verner Infinite Energy Magazine
Peter Hagelstein Introduction to Excess Power … 2013
Mitchell Swartz Introduction to Excess Power … 2013
Slide Set of NANOR®type output presented at MIT IAP Course [.pdf] 2012
asked & answered
-—————————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85734.html-———————
-————————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85737.html-——————
In Search of Cold Fusion
It may be that some time in the future conclusive evidence is found for cold fusion and that Fleischmann and Pons did indeed capture a rare moment when the elusive phenomenon revealed itself. But until that time their names will be forever linked to what is referred to as pathological science, a process by which the researchers are tricked into witnessing the results they desperately want to see.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/8772196/In-search-of-cold-fusion
from your website...
more than 10 years later no one has been able to replicate their results.
***Again, Bowlsheet. Replicated > 14000 times.
asked & answered
—————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85732.html———————
You might have a point if their results had not been replicated > 14,000 times.
Science still haunted by Cold Fusion Fiasco
It is now more than 22 years since Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced they had achieved cold fusion. The announcement came before an independent laboratory had verified their results and subsequent tests failed to validate their claims. Having alerted the world’s media to a solution to the energy crisis and then having to backtrack left more than just Pons and Fleischmann with egg on their faces. It was an embarrassment to the scientific community and there has been a stigma attached to cold fusion ever since.
The University of Utah announced in 1998 that they would let the cold fusion patent lapse. Fleischmann and Pons remain adamant that their research was valid, though no one has been able to reproduce their findings. Whether Rossi will live to regret taking a similarly public route with his research remains to be seen but it will not have endeared him to his fellow scientists.
http://cold-fusion.ca/science-still-haunted-by-cold-fusion-fiasco-93000
THE SEVEN WARNING SIGNS OF VOODOO SCIENCE
Robert L. Park
Department of Physics
University of Maryland
The most notorious example in recent years was the discovery of “cold fusion” by two University of Utah chemists, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. They claimed to have developed a simple electrolytic process to induce fusion between deuterium nuclei in a solution of heavy water, creating helium and liberating substantial amounts of heat. The scientific community did not learn of the claim until it was announced by the University of Utah at a press conference in Salt Lake City. Moreover, the announcement dealt largely with the economic potential of the discovery, and was devoid of the sort of details that might enable other scientists to judge the strength of the claim or repeat the experiment. Even after the press conference, details that might have enabled other scientists to repeat the experiment were not freely available.
Ordinarily, scientists who believe they have made a significant discovery consult first with colleagues in their own institution, and go public with their findings only after the work has been fully vetted by whatever segment of the scientific community is best qualified to judge its value. Attempts to bypass rigorous scientific evaluation by going directly to the media, suggest a desire to turn a quick profit on the work before its flaws can be exposed. Nevertheless, within a few weeks, other scientists felt they had assembled enough details from media accounts to repeat the Pons and Fleischmann experiment. They found no evidence that fusion was taking place.
http://www.physics.utah.edu/~detar/phys4910/readings/misconduct/Park_SevenSigns.htm
Fleischmann and Pons remain adamant that their research was valid, though no one has been able to reproduce their findings.
***Again, Bowlsheet. Replicated > 14000 times.
asked & answered
—————www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85732.html———————
Whether Rossi will
***Again, this thread is not about Rossi.
live to regret taking a similarly public route with his research remains to be seen but it will not have endeared him to his fellow scientists.
***Rossi is not a scientist. He’s an engineer looking to make a buck.
Dr. Park was handed a paper refuting his assertions. He refused to even hold it in his hand. That’s some “scientist” you’re relying on.
The leading opponents, such as Robert Park, are not experts in relevant fields such as nuclear energy, electrochemistry or calorimetry....
see below
https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=wm#search/robert+park/13fe1f66f40b4670
With the palladium deuterium system there is good evidence that cold fusion is, in fact, fusion. It produces helium in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does.
No one has looked for nuclear products in the nickel systems yet. (This is a very expensive and difficult experiment.)
There is no doubt that cold fusion is a nuclear effect. In addition to helium, it produces tritium, neutrons and x-rays. A chemical effect is ruled out because: there is no chemical fuel in the cell; no chemical changes are observed; and with many cells, a device weighing a few grams has produced as much energy as thousands of grams of the most potent chemical fuel. Researchers at Amoco concluded:
“The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment. . . .”
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf
I disagree with David Goodstein. Most researchers in this field have been mainstream academic scientists. Many of them have been distinguished leaders such as the late P. K. Iyengar, chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, and Martin Fleischmann, Fellow of the Royal Society. The leading opponents, such as Robert Park, are not experts in relevant fields such as nuclear energy, electrochemistry or calorimetry.
Dr. Robert Park is a quack who refuses to educate himself on the developments in this field.
From your article...
Several laboratories are still pursuing cold fusion research, but as yet no conclusive results have been published.
***Well, now. A multi$Billion company, National Instruments, begs to differ. They looked at 150 replications. They are the EXPERTS in Measurement Error.
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/eu_brussels_june_20_2012_concezzi.pdf
Just like I knew what the outcome of the birther issue was going to be back in 2008 (”going nowhere”) - I’m just as confident that the day before I die, I’ll be reading that the breakthrough is just around the corner, maybe tomorrow (with the above issue) ... :-) ...
It’ll be the same for my kids and grandkids.
On the other hand, you’re going to die sometime in the future (just like I am) - except you’ll be holding a bag of lost causes.
Got something to say in furtherance of the science behind this issue?
You were a troll on the birther issue. Are you a troll on this issue now? On both issues you showed that you didn’t do any homework, just cut & paste... so far.
I know a lost cause when I see one ... just like the last lost cause you were in.
Ignore it, Kev. It trolls for responses to take to ‘other sites’ where it gets lots of attention ragging conservatives.
Yup. I was a lost cause on the constitution, on this constitutionalist website. You were a troll on that, and now on this issue, and if I were to look through your posts I have no doubt you’re a troll on other issues. You’re just a troll, a bandwagon troll. You didn’t know anything then, you don’t know anything now, just cut & paste garbage. You’ll go to your death not having done any homework, having jumped on every bandwagon that came your way. A bandwagon troll. Proud of yourself?
Thanks for bumping the thread T4BTT
LOL ... since I was borne out in my assessment of the issue back then in 2008 — I feel it’s only right to check back with you in another five years and see if my assessment of this is right, too ... :-) ...
I’ll mark it on my calendar.
It figures. It is trolls like this that make me suggest the following, from my home page:
___________________________________________________________________
I would like to see a VOLUNTARY idealogy litmus matrix here on Free Republic, but when I proposed it to Jimrob, he called me a newbie.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2145065/posts?page=130#130
To: babygene I don’t think he’s all that interested.
To: MHGinTN It doesn’t matter what a FReeper thinks. It’s just a list that they tell us what they think. That way we can tell who we’re dealing with.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2145065/posts?page=130#130
To: Jim Robinson Hah hah, that’s great. I signed up 2 months after you and I’m a newbie. Back then no one even said, “Welcome to FR”. But yeah, I do think that there are tons of RINOs. To be more accurate, the term would be CINOs.
I’ve been pushing for an idealogical litmus matrix here on FR, not to get rid of RINOs but to expose them.
THE GOP DOESN’T WANT US- SO WHAT’S NEXT?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965735/posts?page=762#762
***It simply takes too long. Look at this thread alone. I see evidence of RINOism in some of the FReepers on this thread. It takes 700 posts to drill down. We need the matrix posted and available so that we don’t have to drill down on every FReeping thread. They’re wasting our time. Deliberately.
Agreed to a large degree. Perhaps a way to rate members by other members???
762 posted on Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:43:23 PM by roamer_1
130 posted on Monday, December 08, 2008 2:39:20 PM by Kevmo (Palin/Hunter 2012)
49 posted on Monday, December 22, 2008 7:29:27 PM by Kevmo ( It’s all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies] 48 posted on Thursday, November 26, 2009 10:25:08 PM by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
___________________________________________________________________
Oh my! Are you in on this lost cause, too?! Y’all seem to run in packs.
LOL ... since I was borne out in my assessment of the issue back then in 2008
***Please, take a writing class. And learn some etiquette about not crossing threads in stalking a fellow freeper. I doubt you will, but I’m supposed to ask.... you’re one of the most egregious trolls I’ve run across on FR.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts?page=129#129
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.