by metatron 6 Replies latest jw friends
NASA scientist calls "Cold Fusion" (i.e. Low Energy Nuclear Reactions) "No. 1" in the field of alternative energy:
http://pesn.com/2011/05/31/9501837_Cold-Fusion_Number-1_Claims_NASA_Chief/
This thing isn't stopping. And the implications are enormous.
metatron
Fascinating, I love stories & breakthroughs like this, but as a cynic, I always wonder whether or not the status quo (coal & oil companies) are actively hampering alternative energy efforts.
I am following the Rossi story on a blog site used by science writers and researchers. They feel that if he isn't stopped soon, a "stampede" will erupt, as utilities and nations rush to buy into the technology once its reality is established.
Like the emergence of the Internet, I think this one may explode in the faces of the elite.
There were lots of people who "discovered" America but were ignored by the world at large until Columbus came along.
metatron
I'm trying to find an original paper. I am VERY intrigued by this type of technology, but reading this is a bit like reading a Awake article that leave you wondering what was left out of the quotes.
For example: "I think we are almost over the "we do not understand it" problem. I think we are almost over the "this does not produce anything useful" problem" I'd like to know what his definition of "almost" is. The truth is we do not yet have the solution to the problem and we do not know what problems might arise between where we are now and a completed project. Einstein told us in 1905 that there was a lot of energy locked up inside the nucleus of an atom. It took forty years to figure out how to get it out, and almost seventy years after that, we still have problems with the technology.
The author spends an awful lot of his article refuting this paragraph "Despite his positive statements about LENR, he also made a few statements that indicate his lack of ability to admit that nuclear fusion at low temperatures could be a reality. He stated that all of the so called, "cold fusion" experiments performed over the last twenty years did not produce fusion reactions. His position is that they produced energy via a process called "Widom Larsen" theory, that does not involve fusion at all, but only "beta decay"
So he builds up Dr. Bushnell when he can mine support for his theory, and shoots him down when what he says is inconvenient.
I'd love to see it, but I'm not holding my breath.
I am a cynic, but it certainly looks like feasible. If so this will be world changing. Where's Besty, he is always on top of climate change?
In the words of the author of the article: http://pesn.com/2011/05/31/9501837_Cold-Fusion_Number-1_Claims_NASA_Chief/
"However, I propose that "Widom Larsen" is a form of nuclear fusion, "
In the words OF DR. LARSEN HIMSELF: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-159040.html
Mar31-07, 02:40 AM JKepler,
However, whatever the reaction is; it's NOT nuclear fusion.
There may be some reactions via the electro-weak force.
Lest one forget, the goal is to produce the large amount of
energy freed when reactions involving the strong [nuclear] force
are produced.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Dear Dr. Gregory and other participants:
We wholeheartedly agree; "it's NOT nuclear fusion." In particular, and contrary to most of the existing “cold fusion” scientists, Prof. Widom and I believe that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed below. No “new physics” is involved --- merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not really “cold fusion” and never was.
Please note that the weak interaction is not necessarily "weak" energetically speaking. Energy released by ultra low momentum neutron (ULMN) catalyzed nuclear reactions can be quite substantial. For example, see Eqs. 30 and 31 in our EPJC paper; these particular reactions release > 26 MeV. There are known beta decays that are > 20 MeV. So by choosing the right "targets" for ULMN neutron absorption, you can achieve net energy releases that approach those of the D-D and D-T fusion reactions. However, there are no large releases of energetic neutrons (ULMNs are almost all captured locally before they can thermalize) or hard gamma radiation (gammas between ~1 MeV and 10 MeV are directly absorbed by mass-renormalized SPP electrons and reradiated as mostly infrared photons).
Lastly, ULM neutrons have huge DeBroglie wavelengths because they are formed collectively in many-body surface "patches" of protons or deuterons. Depending on the size of a particular "patch", ULMN wavelengths can be as large as 50,000 to 100,000 Angstroms. No joke. By comparison, a free neutron passing through condensed matter would typically have a wavelength of ~ 2 Angstroms. So the capture cross sections for ULM neutrons on many "target" isotopes is orders of magnitude larger than for neutrons at thermal energies. This is why large fluxes of much more energetic (thermal to MeV+) neutrons have never been seen in 18 years of experimental work on LENR systems. The absence of substantial external emissions of hard photon radiation produced in conjunction with local neutron captures and some (not all) beta decays is explained by local direct conversion of gammas by mass-renormalized "heavy" surface plasmon polariton (SPP) electrons.
The main problem for most researchers in the "cold fusion" field is that for 18 years they have been working with a D-D fusion paradigm locked firmly in their minds. Unfortunately, in our view, that conceptual paradigm was wrong. So much effort was misdirected and many otherwise good experimental results were misinterpreted --- this contributed to the "wheel spinning" and terrible frustration that has characterized the field since 1989.
Hope that this helps clarify a few points. For further details, please read our papers if you have time.
"Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces"
Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006)
"Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269
"Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472
"Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059 Morbius
Let them argue theory as they wish. As long as the effect itself is being exposed as real, we're headed for clear skies and a better world. This thing keeps quietly rolling along.
metatron
