Skip to comments.Physics Professor Comes Out of Closet Admits LENR is For Real
Posted on 01/06/2014 10:10:19 PM PST by Kevmo
Physics Professor Comes Out of Closet Admits LENR is For Real
A physicist with Torontos York University has come out of the closet and admitted that cold fusion energy is real.
Dr. Stoyan Sarg and one of his books courtesy BBS Radio
The tests of E-cat HT reactors of Andrea Rossi provided in Uppsala University, Sweden (2012-2013) and the live test of Defkalion (DGT) Hyperion reactor broadcast on July 22-23, 2013 are reliable demonstrations that cold fusion energy is real, Dr. Stoyan Sarg wrote in an article for a website called Foreign Policy Journal. Please note that Foreign Policy Journal has nothing to do with the respected journal Foreign Policy.
Sarg is not an amateur instead hes an engineer and a physicist. In the past Sarg worked with the European Space Agency, Intercosmos a Warsaw Pact space research organization associated with the former Soviet Union and the Canadian Space Agency. Sarg has also been a visiting scientist at Cornell University and he worked with the first SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project.
Sarg also outlines what might be a test for verification of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) in his article. He thinks that a test to check for radioactive isotopes before and after such a reaction could verify it. Sarg believes the isotopes decay and produces beta particles, he thinks testing for beta particles could verify LENR claims.
Interestingly enough Sarg criticized Andrea Rossi for not allowing such tests although he thinks Rossi and his ecat are credible. Francessco Celani has stated that Rossi has prevented him from making such tests.
Sarg thinks that Defkalions device is more credible because the company can control nuclear reactions with a high voltage discharge. Sarg doesnt comment on other LENR efforts such as the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, Brillouin, Francesco Piantellis efforts and Jet Energys NANOR.
Still he makes an important point in conclusion thats well worth repeating here. Our expectations for cheaper and safer nuclear energy are realistic. Like many observers Sarg thinks that more research into LENR is needed.
The Cold Fusion/LENR Ping List
Can this be economically be expropriated by the public?
The question is, how ought we to be spending our money?
Asked & answered
lol... Who spreads their legs 1st...The money will take care of itself...*W*
Yes, there will be many who spread their legs for this, and the first among them will be the skeptopathic brigade.
————— firstname.lastname@example.org/msg87557.html -————————
A Google of his name indicates that he's also an expert on UFO propulsion, LOL!
They tinker with this stuff but cannot explain the physics of it.
How can you have the gall to repeatedly post this crap on FR?
That Prof Sarg is a UFO conspiracy theory quack, if not the best known Canadian UFO quack.
I mean, you’ve been posting this crap on FR for what, 3 years? Why are you not banned? Did you invest in this ponzi sham? Are you getting paid to create url crosslink traffic for SEO results by the scammers?
Oh look, a liberal who wants to exterminate what he doesn’t agree with. What a surprise.
Why don’t you unpin your thought police badge and sit on it.
And wipe your mouth - you’re frothing again.
Cold fusion is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature, compared with temperatures in the millions of degrees that is required for hot fusion. It was proposed to explain reports of anomalously high energy generation under certain specific laboratory conditions. It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community because the original experimental results could not be replicated consistently and reliably, and because there is no accepted theoretical model of cold fusion.
Cold fusion gained attention after reports in 1989 by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, then one of the worlds leading electrochemists, that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat (excess heat), of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium. The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.
The reported results received wide media attention, and raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy. Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes fell with the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.
By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead, and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.
In 1989, a review panel organized by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive enough to start a special program, but was sympathetic toward modest support for experiments within the present funding system.
A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first. Support within the then-present funding system did not occur.
A small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion, now often preferring the designation low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Some have reported that under certain conditions they observe excess heat effects by interaction of hydrogen or deuterium with palladium, nickel or platinum. Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in peer reviewed scientific journals, the results do not receive as much scrutiny as more mainstream topics. .......
Cold Fusion Claims Resurface
by Benjamin Radford
Hopes about cold fusion have been raised once again by two Italian researcher who claim to have fused atomic nuclei at room temperature.
Cold fusion has been a holy grail of physics for decades. If it could be achieved, it would be a cheap, clean, and limitless energy source.
According to a column at Physorg.com:
Italian scientists Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi of the University of Bologna announced that they developed a cold fusion device capable of producing 12,400 W of heat power with an input of just 400 W. Last Friday, the scientists held a private invitation press conference in Bologna, attended by about 50 people, where they demonstrated what they claim is a nickel-hydrogen fusion reactor. Further, the scientists say that the reactor is well beyond the research phase; they plan to start shipping commercial devices within the next three months and start mass production by the end of 2011.
If this all sounds fishy to you, it should.
This is of course not the first time that scientists have made such a claim. On March 23, 1989, two chemists at the University of Utah, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, announced that they had discovered a technique for creating cold fusion using deuterium.
That was surprising enough, but they also claimed to have done it with inexpensive equipment that could be found in most high school chemistry classes. It caused a big stir in the media and in science circles, but months and years passed without the promised cold fusion.
Physics professor Robert Park, in his book Voodoo Science (Oxford University Press, 2000), notes: One reason Pons and Fleischmann had to be wrong was because the number of neutrinos they claimed to see was at least a million times too small to account for the energy they reported.
Furthermore, there were early indications that something wasnt right about the researchers experiments. For one thing, the byproducts of deuterium fusion include neutron, tritium and gamma rays. In fact, their experiment would have produced lethal doses of nuclear radiation on a scale that approached Russias Chernobyl reactor. It didnt.
The University of Utah, embarrassed by the whole affair, announced in 1998 that they would let Pons and Fleischmanns cold fusion patent lapse. The researchers remain adamant that their research was valid, though no one has been able to reproduce their findings.
The Italian scientists, like Pons and Fleischmann, skipped the typical route of publishing their study and results in a peer-reviewed science journal, instead taking it directly to the press and public. This is a strong sign of pseudoscience, and smacks of a mistake, if not an outright hoax.
In many ways cold fusion is similar to perpetual motion machines. The principles defy the laws of physics, but that doesnt stop people from periodically claiming to have invented or discovered one.
Field Propulsion by Control of Gravity by Stoyan Sarg, Ph.D. explains a new theory of propulsion in an effort to explain the reported movements of unidentified aircraft
TORONTO (MMD Newswire) January 28, 2010 Field Propulsion by Control of Gravity: Theory and Experiments by Stoyan Sarg, Ph.D. seeks to explain the science behind a propulsion system that would be consistent with the movements and appearance often attributed to UFOs.
According to Sarg, the nature of UFO phenomena is still considered a mystery because the observed and registered physical effects are not explainable from the point of view of modern physics. Citing overwhelming evidence, Sarg contends that the scientific community should reconsider previously held assumptions about gravity and propulsion as related to flight. With that in mind, Sarg presents a theory called Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory, which predicts an effect called stimulated anomalous reaction to gravity. It is based on a process that invokes quantum mechanical interactions between oscillating ion-electron pairs and the space-time continuum. According to Sarg, the effect could lead to development of a new propulsion system for a spacecraft. ....
Which is a failure of the theorists. Scientific validity does NOT rest on theory.....it rests SOLELY on replicated experiments. The idea the disagreement with current theory invalidates experimental data is pseudoscience.
There are a large number of prominent scientists who have sometimes expounded on/believed in things outside their area of expertise. A prominent scientist at IBM thought "crystal energy" was real.
But those opinions are a wholly different topic from areas that are in their field of technical competence.
As for the rest of your blather... I suggest you study up. LENR is real, proven by replicated experiment.
LOL. The reported particles were neutrons, not neutrinos. So much for your "expert". He/she doesn't even know the experimental evidence well enough to get even that detail right.
“Scientific validity does NOT rest on theory.....it rests SOLELY on replicated experiments. “ - WW
Now, how many independent labs have replicated the results of the eCat?
What is the exact configuration of the eCat device? (a link to the set-up procedures will suffice.)
AFAIK, there has been exactly zero independent eCat testing, and the construction of the device is still held in secret. (and all of the claims to produce and sell devices are over a year past due.)
Please show the eCat independent verification, if it exists. (otherwise the eCat is not a valid standard bearer for LENR)
Still no neutrons
Michael Salamon, 2009.
In a last ditch effort to validate the cold fusion results, fellow University of Utah professor Michael Salamon was allowed into Pons lab to conduct experiments searching for neutrons coming from Pons and Fleischmanns own fusion cells. If any experiment could be sure to replicate the conditions of the original, this would be it. During his five-week long test, Salamon was unable to detect any neutrons.
Pons tried to cast doubt on these results by claiming that the cells were not producing excess heat (and hence, that fusion was not going on) during those five weeks, except during a two-hour period that happened to coincide with a power outage. However, one of Salamons instruments was still able to collect data on neutrons during the outage. Not surprisingly, no spike in neutrons was observed. Pons even went so far as to attempt to censure Salamons data by threatening legal action if Salamon did not voluntarily retract his report. Such attempts to control information are a severe violation of scientific ethics and present an obstacle to scientific progress.
Despite all the evidence against them conflict with established theory, problems with the original experiments, multiple failed replication attempts, and even tests suggesting that the original experiments had produced no fusion Pons and Fleischmann refused to adjust their hypothesis about fusion occurring in palladium and, in this way, broke with standards for good scientific behavior. Though scientists are expected to be open-minded about new ideas, when multiple lines of evidence accumulate against them, even the most intriguing hypotheses must be abandoned.
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.