yitbos
Posted on 07/11/2012 10:18:43 PM PDT by Kevmo
Cold Fusion Is Hot Again - Tuesday, July 17th 9p | 12a ET "A report on cold fusion - nuclear energy like that which powers the sun, but made at room temperatures on a tabletop, which in 1989, was presented as a revolutionary new source of energy that promised to be cheap, limitless and clean but was quickly dismissed as junk science. Today, scientists believe that cold fusion, now most often called low temperature fusion or a nuclear effect, could lead to monumental breakthroughs in energy production."
http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
Unfortunately, the CNBC website is unresponsive.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40795923/
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/60-minutes-on-cnbc-to-feature-cold-fusion/
“60 Minutes on CNBC” to Feature Cold Fusion
July 11, 2012
There’s an announcement on the CNBC web site of an upcoming program that will feature cold fusion. There will be a program on Scientific Breakthroughs on Tuesday, July 17th at 9:00 p.m. ET. Here is the description:
Cold Fusion Is Hot Again A report on cold fusion – nuclear energy like that which powers the sun, but made at room temperatures on a tabletop, which in 1989, was presented as a revolutionary new source of energy that promised to be cheap, limitless and clean but was quickly dismissed as junk science. Today, scientists believe that cold fusion, now most often called low temperature fusion or a nuclear effect, could lead to monumental breakthroughs in energy production.
Now CNBC is a cable financial network, and 60 Minutes is a CBS show, so there must be some kind of partnership between the two companies. The explanation of ’60 Minutes on CNBC’ is, “CNBC brings you the latest on these classic stories with updates and never before seen footage of these award winning business news stories”
It appears from this billing that there will be an update to the 2009 ’60 Minutes’ segment, but probably not a completely new piece. Perhaps some report on progress and developments made in the field in recent years. It’s interesting that this is being featured on a financial network — an indication that someone sees there is the possibility that cold fusion could have an impact on business and the economy.
If you haven’t seen the 2009 CBS piece, it is here.
I can’t wait until I can power my deLorean time machine with garbage tossed into its Mr. Fusion...
links
http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40795923/
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/60-minutes-on-cnbc-to-feature-cold-fusion/
Likely as not, that'll happen as soon as cold fusion anyway.
yitbos
Perhaps the Popular Science writer seen at the ILENRS-12 conference was contributing to the 60 Minutes episode...
Jim Dunn’s Report on LENR conference in Williamsburg
http://pesn.com/2012/07/07/9602127_Jim_Dunns_Report_on_LENR_conference_in_Williamsburg/
Jim provides an excellent overview, not just of the cold fusion players approaching market, but of the process involved in taking an energy technology to market and where the various players fare in that process.
Slide 31 from Jim’s PPT
(Note, this is not intended to be a photo of an actual Boiler, but to demonstrate the potential size difference. This image on the right is a Dragon electric steam boiler by Fulton.)
By Jim Dunn
for Pure Energy Systems News
Gents - I just returned from the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, LENR, conf. in Williamsburg, VA.
The event and meetings went very well. Lots of excitement and anticipation. Total of 48 attendees, mostly scientists.
Nothing really new or earth-shattering, but Hagelstein, McKubre, Nagel, Bushnell, and many other scientists did a great job.
There were a number of new faces and very good discussions during breaks and social part of conference.
(See my PPT, attached)
Jed Rothwell did a good summary @ http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-
A Popular Science writer was also there, along with Marianne Macy, doing her usual fine reporting and recording of the talks.
The Pop. Sci. reporter is doing a 4000 word feature story, (about 8 pages). He is planning on visiting Rossi, Pianrelli, DGT, and others in Europe, over the next few weeks.
How are you folks doing with tracking all the upcoming events?
Let’s hope Hank gets to actually see a working reactor at Rossi’s and some solid test data. He should ask Rossi to verify that he can produce all the recent claimed results simultaneously, with the same 600C E-Cat system:
This should show 600C delivered thermal output to a load, (not just reactor wall temp measurement) with 10KW of heat being continuously transferred to some active 10KW load (not wall temp), with Input electrical power of less than 1700W, (for COP = 6), with suitable data showing 45 days of continuous 600C output, at 10KW level of excess thermal power, (COP = 6).
Best,
Jim Dunn
Energy Technology Consultants
Are you aware that the Pons-Fleishmann effect has been replicated more than 14,700 times?
bflr
E-cat went scat?
Here we go again. I think I’ve seen this movie before.
I don’t think the original 60 Minutes report mentioned Rossi. It was focused on Dr. Duncan, UMissouri, the guys in Israel. Maybe we’re back to the original crew.
What? Cold fusion researchers need more grant money? Oh yeah, cancer will soon be cured also...just keep the research money flowing.
Is there something that gives you the idea that there is any significant amount of grant money going to cold fusion?
Take a guess: The amount of public money going to Hot Fusion vs cold fusion is...
20% cold fusion/80% hot fusion
10% cold fusion/90% hot fusion
5% cold/ 95% hot
2% cold/ 98% hot
1% cold/ 99% hot
.05% cold/ 99.5% hot
.01% cold/ 99.9% hot
even less than that...
Go ahead, take a guess. How much research money is “flowing”, as you have complained?
What’s so bad about fission? With it you get electricity too cheap to meter......
But at least Hot Fusion research has delivered impressive results.
Oh right.
give it up, the guy that sold the Brooklyn Bridge already gobbled up the available funds from fools!
Disposing of the spent fuel.
Energy gives off heat.
Fission leaves waste that does not decompose for ten thousand years plus. Fission waste containment and storage is a tremendous problem. Fusion would be great if fusion could be contained. Fusion (once attained) does not leave the waste. One thing has always bothered me. The sun has eruptions. These eruptions break out across space at the speed of light (I think). The eruptions and accompanying ejections involve massive amounts of mass and energy. Is safe containment of fusion possible, if fusion is attainable, or once fusion is attained one has a virtual Sun with internal combustion plus all the mass ejections thereof associated with fusion like our Sun?
The short answer is that "cold fusion" offers the needed safe containment, because it is driven by quantum mechanical effects that bypass the "brute force" approach used by "hot fusion" (tokamaks).
"Hot fusion" DOES try to build a "virtual sun" and has all the attendant problems of trying to do that. Which is also why "hot fusion" is has not "delivered" a working reactor after fifty years of research and $250 billion spent.
Cold Fusion is a movie starring “ The Saint”.
Thanks for the info. Thus if hot fusion is not containable and cold fusion is the alternative, then am thinking I must learn more about cold fusion. I would love to see fusion work. Would eliminate the waste for one thing and the waste is a problem. Spoke recently with someone in the field of fission. I asked one question. Had he read anything which would make him think fusion was possible. He did not know, and stated his side of the equation was fission. Had a professor once and in his class his comment was, We went the wrong way. Should have gone the fusion route. So I asked a question. Which was the easier for containment, fusion or fission? The answer was long from him. He did say fission was more possible because containment was possible. At the time fission containment came to be there was no containment possible for fusion. Fusion (imho) offers limitless energy, if containment can be found. Soon I hope for fusion to be contained. I believe fusion is the energy of the future, if containment is found. It will take a better mind than mine to find the piece to the puzzle.
We created that problem ourselves. If we had gone the route of breeder reactors, we wouldn't have this issue. Look at the French nuclear program. They have a tiny fraction of the waste we would have for an equivalent program.
If Rossi can show that, to an independent, reputable tester, preferably at the tester's lab, then I'll be very interested.
Until then, I'll wait for test results. Whatever happened to the customer that Rossi sold the e-Cat to last year?
"Hot Fusion" is REALLY DIFFICULT (and has not yet been practically accomplished even after fifty years, by any of the MANY routes that have been tried. And depending on the particular fusion fuel mix, it is not without its own problems with radiation and waste disposal. True that the reaction itself generates no waste, but the "easiest to burn" fuel mix generates lot of neutrons, and the structure of the reactor itself slowly becomes radioactive. At the end of the life of the plant, that radioactive material also has to be "disposed of".
Disposal of wastes from both processes are overblown in the public mind, and tainted by leftover propaganda from the Cold War. Waste disposal CAN be done, but is being prevented (at least in the US) from being done by the eco-nuts.
If you want to start learning about "cold fusion", I suggest starting with Edmund Storm's on-line (free) introduction "A Student's Guide to Cold Fusion". He expands his coverage in his book "The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" (this is intended as a college science text and is not cheap....on the order of a hundred bucks on Amazon..but you can get your local library to borrow it for you through Interlibrary Loan.
I also suggest looking through the LENR/CANR.org Website.
No, seriously, if the science and observations are all valid, then why have they not been able to demonstrate anything on a larger, easily-observed scale? They'e had 20 years to move from "scientific claim" to the next step of irrefutable proof, and they can't do it. They can't even explain the "why" of alleged excess energy production.
So I'm still betting on Dumbledore.
Sure, after that, you need to string wires everywhere, get people to put phones in their homes and businesses, and set up billing structures to fund telephone companies -- there would be plenty of work left to do. But you'd know that the telephone works.
Fusion? I used to have hopes but it just seems like one scam after another. No public demonstration. No "Mr Watson" moment. They just keep dangling the promise in front of me.
I say it's a con.
+ 
=
Largely because the science effort in LENR has been stifled/impeded at every turn by some of the dirtiest science politics I have ever seen in my almost fifty years of "doing science", and includes actual science fraud on the part of some of those who claimed "not to observe" the effects. These efforts continue today, and are well documented, especially by Steve Krivit.
"They'e had 20 years to move from "scientific claim" to the next step of irrefutable proof, and they can't do it.
FYI, "they" have "done it", at least according the the normal standards of scientific proof. EVERY facet of CF has been replicated, often multiple times.
"They can't even explain the "why" of alleged excess energy production."
"Why" is largely irrelevant. Replicable scientific results are all that is needed. The problem is not "not enough theory" the problem is "too many (competing) theories". But make no mistake......physics is "still" an experimental science, and replicable results "still" trump any theory.
Nope. The evidence is there. That you refuse to look at it means zip. Plenty of qualified witnesses, victims, and investigations. VERY well documented.
See Nobel Lauriate Julian Schwinger's personal testimony about how his attempt to publish a theoretical paper explaining cold fusion was rejected. Schwinger being one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the 20th Century, I would think he would have been worth hearing from.
The only "horse hockey" around here is in YOUR head.
Sorry, but that is just incredibly unconvincing to me. Surely there is at least one interested and wealthy entrepeneur, benefactor, etc., who could fund them to build something of a larger scale. Just one. And in more than 20 years, nothing. That speaks of a far more fundamental problem than just a skeptical scientific community.
FYI, "they" have "done it", at least according the the normal standards of scientific proof. EVERY facet of CF has been replicated, often multiple times.
No, they haven't. If they truly did, and on a scale and with sufficient repeatability (there's the real rub), then the debate would be over. All we keep hearing about are lab experiments that sometimes work, and sometimes don't.
You know every time I see that repeated I just want to ask "Has anyone made a piece of toast or something with it yet?"
I'm not sure it's a con, but the lack of public demonstrations suggests that whatever they think they've got isn't what they've actually got, so attempts at replication don't work consistently.
I'm not sure it's a con, but the lack of public demonstrations suggests that whatever they think they've got isn't what they've actually got, so attempts at replication don't work consistently.
The problem with Rossi is Rossi.
He said he was going to let the market decide, so let us see what the market decides. If he’s got the things working at 600C for 45 days at a time, great.
Then where’s my Mr. Fusion?
***You are utterly, 100% right. The hot fusion boys have spent $250B of our money, and the best we have to show for it is 6MJoules of output for a few seconds. In the meantime, hundreds of LENR experiments have generated thousands of MJoules for less than a thousandth of the cost — almost all of which is private money to begin with.
So for hot fusion, we’ve got maybe a total of 10MJoules for $250B, which comes to $25k/Joule. For cold fusion, we’ve got maybe a total of 100k MJoules for $250M, which 25cents/Joule.
Like you say, where is my Mr. Fusion, from the hot fusion boys?
That it is "incredibly unconvincing" to you means zip. The facts are there. Look at them. Krivit's website is a good starting place. The skeptopaths LOVE to cite Krivit when he bashes Rossi (or some other LENR researcher that he "gets on the outs with"), but he is suddenly completely without credibility when he documents the stalling/interference. I "wonder" why that might be.
"No, they haven't. If they truly did, and on a scale and with sufficient repeatability (there's the real rub), then the debate would be over. All we keep hearing about are lab experiments that sometimes work, and sometimes don't.
Yes, they have. Note the words "scientific proof" in my comment. Such proof does NOT require that it work every time....it must meet sufficient statistical success as to constitute such proof. That has been done, repeatedly. Again, the facts are there...look at them. What you are talking about is "engineering proof". There is a major difference between them.
No, seriously, if the science and observations are all valid, then why have they not been able to demonstrate anything on a larger, easily-observed scale?
***No, seriously, ask the same question of hot fusion before you demand it of LENR.
They’e had 20 years to move from “scientific claim” to the next step of irrefutable proof, and they can’t do it.
***Hot fusion has had 50 years to reach the next step, and they can’t do it. We should parcel out that money for research based upon how many Joules are produced.
They can’t even explain the “why” of alleged excess energy production.
***There are dozens of theories right now, just like there are dozens of theories of gravity. They can’t explain gravity, and yet apples still fall from trees.
Is that pic a self-portrait?? If so, it is certainly accurate.
I gather that means you choose not to be aware of the facts on the ground, that the effect has been replicated thousands of times.
Yes, but unlike with cold fusion, we know the actual theory of hot fusion, how it works, why it works, etc.. We know the theory is valid, and the trick is coming up with mechanisms to make it controllable.
We don't have that with cold fusion. We don't know even the theoretical "how" and "why" of it. All we've got, at best, are lab experiments of questionable reproducability, without even an underlying theory of why it should work at all.
But what are you advocating, exactly? I've got no problem with private scientists, with private funding, continuing to work on it. Maybe they'll find something useful and workable at some point. Maybe they won't. My objection is to the over-inflated hype, or expectation that it will produce something worthwhile.
LOL! Good one!
All we keep hearing about are lab experiments that sometimes work
***Right there, is the scientific standard. It only needs to be replicated once for it to be valid. You have acknowledged the scientific validity of LENR. The fact that it is difficult to repeat is another matter entirely.
Really. Then read up on the latest example of interference. Hagelstein had landed a grant from a private company for further investigation into LENR to be done at MIT (with lots of overhead bucks going to MIT itself). An MIT "hot physics" prof worked (successfully) to get that funding killed. So said MIT physics prof WORKED AGAINST the interests of MIT to stifle a few thousands of bucks of PRIVATE research funding going to LENR.
This is compared to the $250 BILLION already spent on hot fusion (which is why the hot physics guys are so scared of CF......they blew it).
No editorial comment intended.
Just a fun juxtaposition.............
I would be happy to see a demo lasting 48 hours at 600C, done at an independent location, with Rossi providing a box, and the tester supplying the water feed and condenser.
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.