PDF The Coming Age of LENR: How Cold Fusion Could Change the World

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Coming Age of LENR: How Cold Fusion Could Change the World file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Coming Age of LENR: How Cold Fusion Could Change the World book. Happy reading The Coming Age of LENR: How Cold Fusion Could Change the World Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Coming Age of LENR: How Cold Fusion Could Change the World at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Coming Age of LENR: How Cold Fusion Could Change the World Pocket Guide.

From to , I submitted 30 applications to the Russian Foundation for Basic Research for grants for research on cold nuclear fusion. The only success was received in under a Russian-Chinese grant, for which we submitted a joint application with Professor Xing Zhong Li from China. He received a grant, but they did not give me one.

Professor Li spent three years on this grant, which was associated with the diffusion of deuterium in palladium. Cold fusion research is needed for solving strategic civil and military tasks, and therefore they finance these works from their scientific and military state budgets, like when in the USSR, and in post-Soviet Russia, especially after the death of Academician A. Baraboshkin, for some reason they became absolutely unnecessary and turned into pseudoscience. What does this mean? The question for over 20 years remains unanswered. I have not previously said that we performed the molecular dynamics calculation work on the behavior of deuterium in palladium, which also considered phase transitions between the alpha and beta phases in palladium deuteride.

If titanium deuteride has three phases, between which there are two interphase transitions, then palladium has only one phase transition between alpha and beta phases. Therefore, the presence of three phases in titanium deuteride suggests that the process in titanium should go better. So it turned out. Titanium has shown itself to be much better in energy than palladium: in reactors with deuterated titanium, tens and hundreds of watts of excess heat per gram are produced today, while in installations with palladium, milliwatts are still obtained, as in the days of Fleischmann and Pons.

Cold War Origins

In , at a meeting of the European Commission on Energy, at which prospects for the industrial introduction of cold nuclear fusion installations were discussed, a report was made on the basis of a report by economists from Gazprombank on the use of palladium reactors:. Give us so much heat to steam the turbine, and then we will give you the money.

I would also like to tell about those people who participated from the very beginning in cold fusion research in the USSR and the Russian Federation and with whom I was personally acquainted. The first of them is the head of the department of the Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He started very well, was interested in cold fusion and managed to publish, in my opinion, two or three very large solid reviews on cold fusion, about what directions there are, how they are developing.

I advise everyone to get acquainted with these fundamental reviews, which describe in detail how it all began. We met at a meeting of the chemistry department of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and he gave me his copyright copy of one of these reviews and wrote:. Deryagin and Candidate of Chemical Sciences A. I want to pay special attention to the work of the group of Academician Boris Vladimirovich Deryagin. Under his leadership was defended the only candidate dissertation on the study of cold nuclear fusion. Its author, Andrey G. Deryagin in I also tried twice to start writing dissertations on cold fusion in the Russian Academy of Sciences, but both times it ended at the stage of agreeing on the topic and approving it at the scientific council of the institute.

Unfortunately, Andrei Lipson died early. He and I, at the 7th International Conference on Cold Synthesis in Vancouver in , prepared a report on the necessary conditions for the implementation of cold nuclear fusion. It was assumed that in the interaction with deuterium phase transitions should take place in the solid, and the surface of the solid should be very large. An optimal time for the implementation of a phase transition in deuterium-solid body systems is necessary, that is, in addition to saturation, it should go at a certain speed.

If the saturation goes too slowly, then we do not register the products of the nuclear fusion reaction and we cannot say that nuclear fusion occurs at all. At a certain rate of saturation, nuclear fusion products are recorded. We noticed this moment in the first experiment — the background of neutrons in a solid is necessary. This idea was practiced by Andrei Lipson, he had many such works.

He worked on KD 2 PdO 4 — in such a complex system. And in the end, he received excess neutrons when a small source of neutrons was placed next to this system. This condition is required. In our first papers, we noticed that if you add some air to deuterium, then the neutron yield increases dramatically times. In , I patented a method for obtaining a nuclear fusion reaction with the addition of air to deuterium and in received a Russian patent.

Here we are talking about a specific method of obtaining nuclear fusion using titanium. We then corresponded with him. He knows and remembers me. It so happened that the famous Italian nuclear physicist Professor Sergio Focardi separated from another famous Italian physicist, Professor Francesco Piantelli, and began to independently engage in cold fusion research in the mids, and in the early s Andrea Rossi joined Foccardi, and they made an operating device for obtaining excess heat in the interaction of hydrogen with nickel.

It was demonstrated by them at the University of Bologna in Italy in January At first they had a small reactor, then they created a megawatt heat generator in which reactors of small reactors were combined. This water then gave out 1 MW of thermal energy due to hydrogen-nickel reactions. Rossi then used gaseous hydrogen. Then the results of Focardi and Rossi were repeated by researchers elsewhere in the world. After a repetition of experiments such as in Switzerland by a group, by Giuseppe Levi, by Alexander Parkhomov in Russia, carefully read the reports and repeated their work.

No, he understood the details, successfully reproduced the result and now he is constantly improving the operating parameters of his reactor. This was not a secret report. Naturally, the question arose of what is true in this report and what is disinformation.

In particular, this report contained the following phrase regarding one of my work on the processing of radioactive waste:. Link 48 points to my work: Tsvetkov, S. It considered the processing of nuclear waste using fast reactors in the cross section for the interaction of neutrons with cesium and strontium.

I considered only two of these radioactive isotopes from the entire spectrum of nuclear waste. It turned out that for the afterburning of nuclear waste, cold fusion neutrons are more profitable and more convenient to use than fast neutron reactors. In connection with the report of the intelligence agency of the US Department of Defense, I had a question: why do our military show strange indifference to research on cold nuclear fusion? Perhaps one of the reasons for this situation is precisely the fact that cold fusion neutrons can destroy atomic and hydrogen bombs by transmuting the nuclei of fissile material, making atomic bombs and missile warheads inoperable, in fact disarming the strategic forces of the nuclear powers.

This feature makes missile defense unnecessary, deprives the military itself of the huge amount of money they now spend on outdated devices that play the role of scenery in the actions of intimidation of humanity and do not bring any tangible benefit, wasting time and energy, to eventually turn into in the sand. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why our military does not really want to develop cold nuclear fusion, which, however, cannot be said about the American military — just look at the latest US government reports on military research and development in the field of cold fusion.

Some time after the appearance of the report by the US Defense Secretary, Vladimir Fedorovich received a letter from the Committee on Energy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, in which he was officially asked to express his opinion on this report, as well as on research on cold fusion in general. The American report stated that there are promising results on cold fusion, everything is fine. And while government funding is not worth it, they say, let the business invest in this area first, and we will see what happens. Today we know that the situation around cold fusion after the Fleischmann and Pons conference developed from the mids according to the traditional US scenario: first, risky, high-cost research and breakthrough high-tech developments are implemented with state money, and then a play of their privatization under the guise of living embodiments American dreams such as Bill Gates, Ilon Musk and the like.

According to this scheme, military IT-development, pharmaceutical, space, etc. We wrote letters, in response we received answers from the Russian Academy of Sciences, from the Ministry of Defense. The low level of scientific reasoning used by opponents of cold fusion in this correspondence, the obvious commitment of their assessments, combined with the lack of knowledge of the works mentioned in the American report, are worthy of analysis in a separate publication. Their position is unshakable: cold fusion is pseudoscience, the report of the US Defense Department is disinformation, the purpose of which is to direct our weakened intellectual forces along the wrong path.

Before our conference, I met with VF Balakirev. He cannot come from Yekaterinburg, but he said hello to all the participants and signs our welcoming address to colleagues from the USA. Here is the protocol of one of the seminars at the Department of Technical Physics, in which it is stated that the specialists and the management of the department support this area and talk about the need for public funding. In , the seminars developed into the idea of organizing a laboratory on low-energy nuclear reactions at the Faculty of Physics and Technology of Ural Federal University.

Title of the presentation of the grant application for the development program of the Ural Federal University. The head of the laboratory was to be the doctor of physical and mathematical sciences B. To organize the laboratory, we applied for projects to receive grants for the development of the university several times.

Hagelstein gave official consent to become a laboratory supervisor and work in UrFU for at least four months a year. On the left — reactor diagram on the right, in the center — a general view of the reactor, on the right — a working sample. Collected a new installation. For three years, 62 experiments have been done. The results obtained not only confirmed, but also significantly surpassed the results of previous studies on the titanium — deuterium scheme. An application for registration of a European patent was filed and filed in Application for European patent on the method and device of cold fusion operating on deuterated titanium, from It is under review.

Twice we were offered to close it and cancel it. But we persist in writing objections. They take time to consider these objections, conduct a new examination and again send us another refusal. Because the Russian patent, which I received in , ended its action in And the European patent is its continuation. What results were obtained on this installation? The graph of temperature changes in Fig. Here you can see the moment of the beginning of the nuclear process and it is clear that at this time the neutron yield is much larger than at the moment of the start of the overlap.

The neutron count maximum corresponds to the moment of the second maximum in temperature in Fig. The change in the counting of neutron pulses at the start-up of D2 on sample No. I believe that the temperature curve, which is indicated in Fig. The first process, shown in blue, is due to the low energy of heat dissipation of the physico-chemical process of formation of titanium deuteride. At the moment of deuterium loading, the second process of releasing additional heat begins, which is Qizb in duration and in magnitude.

It is the second process that is nuclear, that is, its heat is generated due to nuclear processes. It is possible to determine the amount of deuterium absorbed by changing the pressure of deuterium, which turned out to be equal to 0. This amount of deuterium in relation to the total amount of absorbed deuterium is 1. That is, by the amount of released heat there is still a large supply of unused deuterium. This whole process takes only 40—50 minutes. The amount of energy that we spend on absorption in relation to all the heat released is obtained:. That is, it turns out that only one millionth of the absorbed deuterium is used to obtain the observed excess heat.

There is an opportunity to increase this share. There is one more interesting point to which attention should be paid in these studies. According to calculations, the excess heat that should have been released in these reactions should give the intensity of the neutron source:. It is possible that most neutrons are simply absorbed inside the titanium sample, which gives us excess heat. Neutrons remain in the sample and structural materials of the reactor, and only some of them fly out, reach the neutron detector and register with the detector.

I have at the moment such a working explanation of all this. Further in these works secondary signs of cold nuclear fusion were discovered. I have already mentioned that 62 experiments were carried out in Nuremberg. During work we had a break for 4. At this time, a Geiger counter was left next to the installation, which measured the background inside the room where the installation was located. It turned out that the gamma background around the setup decreased, as can be seen in Fig.

And it is clear that it falls off exponentially. And the exhibitor indicates that the process is related to the processes of nuclear decay. I calculated the time of effective half-life, and it turned out:. What can disintegrate in the installation? This may be a complex of some elements — this is not one isotope. Further, when the sample was heated, such an interesting feature was noticed as the change in the power of the external heater.

But when deuterium is injected, then a large energy release from the sample begins, and the power of the heater increases. How does it increase? Due to the fact that the temperature of the heater itself and its resistance increase. We used a power source that worked in the mode of maintaining a constant load current, and at the same time the temperature of this heater from an additional heat source increased.

Accordingly, the resistance of the heater increases, which leads to a change in the power of the heater, according to my calculations, by 0. This is a fairly sensitive value. Therefore, I had an idea to use this effect to measure the heat from the sample during its saturation with deuterium and degassing. If you calibrate the external heater and install a constant current source, you can measure the amount of heat released from our sample without a Peltier calorimeter or a flow calorimeter. In the same Nuremberg cycle of experiments, another very interesting mode of continuous release of excess heat was discovered, which I called self-oscillatory.

In this mode, the titanium deuteride begins to absorb and release deuterium with a frequency of 0. The system swayed in this way, before it went into self-oscillatory mode. The sample was completely saturated with deuterium, and then I turned off and turned on the heater. And such a self-oscillating mode can last up to four hours. The appearance of the auto-oscillation mode with a frequency of 0.

According to calculations, an excess heat of Watts per 7 g of titanium was obtained. If you count it on a gram sample, you get an excess heat source of about 7 kW. The energy intensity of such a heat source will be That is, this is a significant heat release that can be converted and used as heat or as electricity. In the summer of in Estonia, I managed to create a new installation Fig.

I started scaling the effect. The result was It turns out that the amount of heat generated by increasing the mass of the working sample also increases. At this facility, I achieved a process in which there is a constant heat release, while the heat release increases over time. Without adding anything, without touching anything, the system itself enters the self-oscillatory mode when it starts to generate heat.

A few words about the mechanisms of cold nuclear fusion. I found the expression of Albert Einstein, made by him in Because for this it is necessary to be able to separate the atoms. Actually, a system of solids in our case, titanium and deuterium allows us to separate hydrogen molecules into atoms. This separation mechanism works on the surface, more precisely, the surface works here. The process of titanium saturation with deuterium is carried out in such a way that at first deuterium is adsorbed on the surface, is divided into individual atoms, and individual atoms can penetrate into the titanium lattice.

The size of the crystal lattice of titanium is such that the deuterium molecule cannot pass inside. Only if we divide it into individual atoms, then the deuterium in the atomic state quietly passes inside the lattice. Based on my long research experience, it is possible to formulate the main components of the cold nuclear fusion realization mechanism in titanium: 1. The separation of hydrogen molecules into atoms.

Transformation of the energy of individual atoms using heavier atoms. Maxwell distribution of atoms by energy. The effect of the collider. Van der Waals forces. Primary products of high energy cold nuclear fusion. Siverts law. Explanations for item 7. Large energies give a very large cross section for the reaction of the interaction of reaction products with each other. I believe that the resulting neutrons, helium-3, tritium and protons interact with each other with the development of the same tritium and helium A cascade of nuclear reactions is launched, which leads to the production of tritium in much larger quantities than neutrons are obtained, and this is what we register.

That is, neutrons, in addition to the energy return to the titanium lattice, are also involved in the formation of tritium. At the same time, helium-3 still adds protons to these reactions; therefore, such an imbalance of the amount of products in these nuclear reactions is observed. As a result of a cascade of nuclear fusion reactions, helium-4 is formed. That is my understanding of the process today. It is impossible to tell in detail about all aspects and directions of development that arise in the process of studying this amazing phenomenon of cold nuclear fusion.

You can only identify the main directions, each of which requires a serious and lengthy discussion. At the moment I would highlight the following areas: 1. Getting heat and electricity. Processing of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants and other industries. Synthesis of tritium is much cheaper in cost than currently available in nuclear reactors.

Synthesis of precious metals and rare isotopes.


Getting oxygen from carbon dioxide. Creating a gamma laser. Space, aviation, auto and railway engines using technology. No one wants to waste time today on understanding the mechanisms of cold fusion, although logic suggests that there was first a fusion of the elements, and now we use them using fission reactions or simply burning fossil fuels.

  • Runcorn Through Time.
  • Directory:Cold Fusion - yxicavicox.ml!
  • The Secret Power of Lists: Find a partner?
  • Innocent the Sword Book 1.
  • Creative Transformation (The Golden Lotus Sutra on Spiritual Practice).
  • Hamburger Man?

Humanity is vital to the transition to nature-like, cyclical technologies that will meet the needs of people without disturbing the natural balance and gyres. The key technology in this transition today is the cold fusion technology of cold transmutation of nuclei. The transition to new nuclear technologies allows solving simultaneously the main energy, resource and environmental global problems.

Cold nuclear fusion is the gift of the Creator. Sin is not to take advantage of this. We must learn to use it. On May 8, , the Electrochemical Society held their spring meeting in Los Angeles amid the frenzied controversy of the cold fusion announcement, and declared it F-Day! This was on the heels of the American Physical Society meeting that began May 1 in Baltimore, where disgruntled physicists who failed to replicate the findings gathered together to congratulate each other for saving science from amateurs. After all, they knew nuclear theory, and chemists did not.

Some of the biggest insults hurled by the mainstream physicists came from scientists with the MIT Plasma Fusion Laboratory and Caltech. Electrochemist Nathan Lewis was from Caltech and claimed to have seen no effect. As it turned out, his experiment was woefully marred. Miles J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Not only do we get fusion-sized energy from tiny table-top cells that use a fuel of water, the heat energy is derived from a new type of reaction that generates no deadly radiation, as well as no CO2!

Follow Physics Central

Oh, Steve. While the Baltimore meeting allowed physicists to vent their failures with misery as company, the lowest point for the American Physical Society was reached when Dr. Steve Jones from Brigham-Young University led a panel at a news conference. Steve Jones, of course, the very reason why the March 23, news conference was held in the first place. It was after five years of research that Drs. Fleischmann and Pons decided to get funding for their experiments.

Steve Jones for review. Jones had been previously working on a different kind of muon-catalyzed fusion , but had given it up for lack of results. He claimed to get neutrons, though no one has ever reproduced his results. When Jones saw what the pair from University of Utah were up to, he was excited enough to jump back in, and he contacted Drs. Fleischmann and Pons — not a normal procedure in the application process — to invite them down for a visit to see his neutron detector. In the end of February , while they visited, Steve Jones told Drs.

At the Baltimore meeting of physicists, Dr. Jones, perhaps still sore from being one-upped on his one-up, made poor scientific judgement by polling with a show of hands in order to determine whether cold fusion was dead, as documented by Steven Krivit on his website. To have the top physicists in the country ridiculing the scientific process with such ugly outrage showed weak stature in scientific thinking, but these physicists were successful in having the tide turn against Drs.

Their excess heat effects were now completely suspect. Thus, when the May 8 meeting of the Electrochemical Society began, electrochemist Dr. Nathan Lewis of Caltech was confident in his superior knowledge. Nevertheless, there were attendees who were less assured. From Fire and Ice , we get a list of positive results being reported from very competent and open-minded scientists. Eugene Mallove writes:. People evidently are misunderstanding a lot about calorimetry. A lot of people are making calorimetric measurements with instruments that may not be suitable for these experiments.

The meeting began with controversy over the relative absence of critical scientists; had it been arranged to be a celebration of only positive results? Lewis of Caltech was present at least as a token skeptic. As he had done in Baltimore, he proclaimed his numerous permutations and combinations of materials and conditions, all of which had failed to show excess power or nuclear products. Fleischmann and Pons were having no trouble.

Now they were claiming to get bursts of heat lasting a few days up to 50 times the power input to their cell—the claim was even more extreme than before! Was this a tip-off that they were really onto something, or that they had completely gone off the deep end? To rebut Lewis, they showed a brief film clip of a bubbling cell in which they had injected red dye. They said that they would rerun their experiment with a new detector.

More disturbing was their withholding of the long-awaited and promised 4He measurements. There was an emerging feeling not necessarily a correct one that if there were no copious neutrons, there had to be helium-4 to make the claim for a nuclear process. The Fleischmann-Pons rods were being analyzed for helium by Johnson-Matthey Corporation, the year-old British precious metals supplier, under an agreement of exclusivity with the company.

There is conclusive evidence there is a lot of heat generated here—much larger than the proposed chemical reactions that people suggest might be happening. The experiments were subtle, apparently difficult to reproduce consistently, and of course totally unexplained.

  • The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.
  • Cold fusion died 25 years ago, but the research lives on!
  • Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 43.

Steve Jones again reiterated his faith in his neutrons and disbelief on the question of heat—at least in cold fusion cells. Cold fusion might still be partly responsible, he thought, for the hellish conditions inside the planet. Soon cold fusion would face increasingly acid opposition. Some media had essentially written it off. Scientists who had genuinely tried to make cold fusion happen, but who for reasons still not clear could not coax their cells into working, would be joining the ranks of the opposition. They were frustrated and mad.

They had wasted precious research time chasing rainbows. Enough was enough! Let's not jump to conclusion on Goodstein's position. Both sides were guilty of ignoring fundamental canons of good science, the pro-side ignoring contrary experiments and the con side being convinced by theoretical arguments. Without a reliable source saying this book is grossly flawed due to a lack of consideration of new experiments, this is all so much waste of time since it is only one editor's opinion.

If so, we can close this discussion and get on with our lives. Editors' opinions aren't worth much, particularly against the mainstream scientific opinion. Indirectly, though, V talk , 14 July UTC. States that they had discovered a method for creating nuclear fusion at room temperature, using simple equipment available in any high school laboratory. Lewenstein This was a huge claim to make - nuclear fusion had been thought possible only at temperatures in excess of a million degrees, when nuclei could overcome Coulomb repulsion.

Physics World. The first report on "cold fusion," presented in by Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons, was a global scientific sensation. Fusion is the energy source of the sun and the stars. Everyone thought that it would require a sophisticated new genre of nuclear reactors able to withstand temperatures of tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit. Pons and Fleishmann, however, claimed achieving nuclear fusion at comparatively "cold" room temperatures — in a simple tabletop laboratory device termed an electrolytic cell.

ACS press release. I never could seem to get people to understand why the CCS is a critical concern for cold fusion calorimetry. Today, I realized there was an alternate way to approach the topic, and I have added a section to my user Talk page describing it. Also, won't be too long now before my response to Krivit and Marwan's paper in J. I sent proof corrections in yesterday, and Marwan has written a reply to my comment which I haven't seen yet. When they come out I will summarize here with suggested article additions.

Kirk shanahan talk , 23 July UTC. There are quite a few very biased proponents and naysayers about Cold Fusion. However one of the most convincing ways to lie is to tell the truth but omit key facts. The results of Muonic fusion are qualitative in nature yet we believe them yet the data from Aqueous Cold Fusion is too quantitative for the indicated reaction conditions. The bias of one Nuclear physicist to Cold Fusion might in part be because his Lab blew up, no doubt because he was a careful experimenter trying to get into the second wave of papers.

The theory behind Muonic fusion takes the Muon as times heavier than an electron and replaces the electron in the quantum equation of the Hydrogen molecule. The resulting equation has the two nuclei in much closer proximity than a normal Hydrogen molecule, with neutron or proton or deuteron tunneling amplitude being significant in the other nucleus. The tunneling amplitude is high enough that it seems to be quantitative for the thousand or so reactions before the Muon decays.

The theory behind Aqueous Cold Fusion was that Molecular Hydrogen becomes Atomic Hydrogen after absorption by Palladium exists interstitially as protons within the metallic orbitals of Palladium. As the Palladium saturates with Hydrogen, two Hydrogen nuclei will occupy these interstitial sites becoming similar in proximity to the Hydrogen Nuclei in the Muonic Atom. Defects and Impurities or lack of in the Palladium metal will help crowd these Hydrogen nuclei. Palladium is also alloyed because it is very soft like Gold. There is no mention of the Kcal per mole generated by the recombination of atomic hydrogen to molecular hydrogen.

Another fact that this article omits is that all "successful" experiments used concentrated Lithium Hydroxide Deuteroxide at an alkalinity that would cause considerable overvoltage of Hydrogen resulting in injection of Lithium atoms into the Palladium matrix a common side effect in ElectroPlating. The "fusion" is said not to occur if Sodium Hydroxide or Protonic Water.

If, accounting for cathode size and shape variation, a Palladium membrane can pass that much Hydrogen then one shouldn't need to preload hydrogen for a week. Electromigration of defects, impurities, metals Lithium? Although Hydrogen flows freely through Palladium, Helium does not. Very few Palladium cathodes were sacrificed dissolved to determine trapped gasses and other fusion products. Shjacks45 talk , 26 July UTC. The supposed "non-standard" use of palladium in an electrolytic cell needs to be discussed in a reliable source: not just "prepared for".

There is no sense in us having discussions about things which may or may not happen in the future. Wait until the sources you think are bound to show up actually appear.

Cold Fusion Times

Then we'll discuss it. I suggest archiving this discussion and all other discussions of this nature which are not suggesting immediately actionable edits to the article. The present article talks about claims made in the s and regarding palladium loaded with hydrogen. The first reference is similar to Arata's and others' modern experiments except now they use deuterium and not plain hydrogen. The second, of course, was the inspiration for Pons and Fleischmann. The current article doesn't say anything about the detection of energy in the s experiments; the PLA article strongly focuses on the detection of energy.

I see that the article currently references other references, regarding the s experiments, and so it could be nice to find the orginial publication data. It seems unrealistic to think that the s experimenters were not looking for energy as well as for helium, coming as their research did hot on the heels of Eddington's proposal for why the Sun shines. I also understand, however, that they could well have not found any energy especially since they didn't use deuterium , and therefore didn't report it.

It would be an interesting question, though: "Where did they think the energy went? Isn't speculation fun? V talk , 5 August UTC. I believe this text has been collapsed improperly and should be restored. Shanahan, J. Marwan, M. McKubre, F. Tanzella, P.

Hagelstein, M. Miles, M. Swartz, Edmund Storms, Y. Iwamura, P. Mosier-Boss and L. Forsley J. The journal does not allow me to download from the Web page, and my library does not have an active subscription, so I have ordered the papers. Of course I know what my paper says. I will let you know what the response is when I read it. The J.

What we here now have is a journal article, i. RS, that clearly states nearly everything I have been trying to say is wrong with the CF field for the last several years. By the fact that it is published, it supports the mainstream view that CF is pathological science. I propose we reinsert the additions I made to the CF article in Sept. It will likely require some major surgery as the article is substantially different from back then.

Once I get the Response by Marwan, et al, I will post a summary if desired. Alternatively, I can leave it to the CF advoctes here to do as I have done above. We all can anticipate they will say everything I wrote is wrong. Kirk shanahan talk , 9 August UTC. It is amusing to see the pro-CFers come out of the woodwork whenever I post.

They seem to think that my prior post was a violation of some kind. I would like to note that V did bring up one point regarding my new paper which I felt needed a brief response, especially since I have spent so much time trying and failing to educate the pro-CF crowd here about the proposed mechanism for the CCS. I posted that and ignored V's other trolls, which I will continue to do. I also note that so far there has been no substantial comment on my proposed edits.

Kirk shanahan talk , 10 August UTC. Kirk, thank you for publishing your arguments. Do you have a list of the people who have claimed to reproduce that work? I would also like to know if Kirk has a response to the x- and gamma-ray findings which are summarized in that link. First off, it's not what I want, it's what produces the impression that they have actually considered the problem analytically, and then used those considerations in drawing conclusions.

So far the situation is this. Up until my publication of , no one realized it was a problem. Post there was one generic derrogatory comment made on it by Fleischmann, Miles, Mosier-Boss and Szpak in , and a detailed one by Storms , which only dealt with the proposed mechanism that might produce a CCS, not the CCS itself. I rebutted both of these comments with lots of facts and figures not unsubstantiated claims as they have stated in the response to my recent comment , so it certainily can't be concluded that their pubs rule the day.

However, that is what they conclude, and they therefore ignore the CCS problem completely. When forced to consider it, by my recent comment in JEM for example, they grossly misstate the problem in a fashion that makes their version clearly incorrect and then claim that "obviously" the CSS is not an issue this is known as using a strwaman argument, not an acceptable practice. There are probably a variety of ways it could be reasonably addressed.

What I would do is what I did in my reply to Fleischmann, et al, and do some numerical estimation of how big a shift would be needed to cause the observed signals to be classified as 'noise'. If that change ends up as outrageous, they might have the beginnings of an argument that the CCS is not important to that work. So far though, they don't even think about it. If they would conclude the effect might be a reasonable explanation for their observations, then they would have to do some subsequent work to prove it isn't before they can claim they have evidence for a LENR.

Kirk shanahan talk , 24 August UTC. I just noticed that this article says nothing about x-rays, other than in a title of a reference. What I think we all want is a a proposed edit to look at, and b the RS justifying adding it, esp. In other words, anything where significant consideration is given to radiation data that does NOT originate from a known cold fusion researcher.

Unfortunately for you, to my knowledge, no such RS exists, which is probably why your predecessors didn't try to put it in. Most of the RS available revolves around the DOE reviews and the state of affairs back in , primarily because most mainline scientists quit the field about ten. Exceptions are my papers on calorimetry and Clarke's papers on He detection. So just put up a proposed edit in a new section here, with supporting refs i. RS and we'll comment.

Moved to User talk:StevenBKrivit. I am not happy about these collapses and moves. The fact that heavy fermions , an accepted non-controversial field of research, also deals with heavy electrons in metal alloys is also appropriate here. As expected, according to them, I am completely wrong, everywhere. They come to this conclusion by systematically misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I wrote.

Case in point, they refer to the idea that my CCS problem requires random results. In fact I have clearly published that that is not true, it is highly non-random. It is truly astounding the level of denial these folks evidence. I suspect some CF promoter will want to work it into the article. For my part that will be fine as long as done correctly.

Kirk shanahan talk , 16 August UTC. This is not a page for debating Cold fusion or the merits or demerits of Mr. Shanahan's hypothesis. This is a page for the discussion of changes to the article. I am now COI on this topic, so I will be confining my comments to Talk pages, except for making non-controversial edits to the article, or, if I think changes I'd propose might be controversial, to sometimes making self-reverted edits, so that changes can easily be seen directly, much easier than looking at an "explanation.

Shanahan of his position against "CFers," which is probably out of place here. Oriani et al. Taubes , pp. It was later published in Fusion Technology. The claim in the deleted references is countered by Oriani's presentations of his recent work as late as The anti-CF people will defend and claim that the deleted references are valid and the recent publications of Oriani's work are primary references or not in acceptable by their definition journals, newspapers, or magazines. This is, of course, an example of why the anti-CFers are so afraid of recent publications and try to delete them as often as possible ref Current Science debate.

They cling to the pre 'documentation', even when it is clearly false. Since it appears that is almost all they have, they defend it any way they can. Aqm talk , 29 February UTC. Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight.

Lockheed Martin Now Has a Patent For Its Potentially World Changing Fusion Reactor

But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth. This is a primary source with little editorial control. Stop trying to add it. Articles should be written with neutral third-party independent sources. The LENRs group: "Part of the research in the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction LENR Lab consists of experiments that use either an electrolysis process, a high pressure, or an arc process to force hydrogen atoms into the lattice structure of a thin film A of metal.

A major goal of this research is to examine the metal before and after the experiment, to establish the signatures of LENRs by studying transmutation products. Another goal is to measure the energy output of the unit. If an ample amount is released, such cells offer an attractive small power source for future distributed energy systems.

Strange that the newly added source "Reger " doesn't mention that anywhere in his pages thick chemistry book. What does that tell us about the usefulness of the "Reger " book as a source for our article? Of course to both applies, governments nor their agencies are peer reviewed journals. The opinion might be highly note worthy it can not be used for anything more than the official position of the US DOE. The report clearly disclaimers the views as belonging to their authors, the views do not represent the US government. With respect to our edit guidelines: At what stage do other editors believe American bureaucrats may overrule the global scientific community?

Mind you, I didn't say their opinion isn't note worthy or that it isn't worth mentioning the review. It obviously is an important historic event. The part where you want the bureaucrates to overrule the scientists seems to be in violation of the edit guidelines that I am so familiar with. The unscientific report has no place in the lead of the science article. It is just like we are not mentioning Thomas Graham in the lead. The usual explanation asserting how important the report would be doesn't apply.

I'm not questioning the noteworthiness of the review. I'm objecting to the part where you want people like obvious patent troll Steven Jones to be considered the mainstream scientific community. Debunkers who are not involved in the scientific investigation like for example the obvious troll Huizenga should not to be equated with the global scientific community. I don't care if you write whole paragraphs about the US DOE, their fringe views and their pathological denial, it may not be considered the mainstream scientific consensus per wp:synth.

You are to attribute fringe minority views to their author rather than pretending they represent a global scientific consensus. The lack of nuclear byproducts is not the only thing that fails an explanation, the mystery of the high coulomb barrier tunneling is the other. I have no problem with people reverting. However, I have a big problem when people revert without discussing their reverts on the talk page. See [5] and [6] for the reverts in question.

If someone wants to discuss the changed I made above in regards to a revert they think would be appropriate, please do so. The sentence may be superficially true, but it is focussing on a singular review by a cold fusion experimenter who has an obvious point-of-view that is counter to that of the mainstream. The strong claim that "nuclear reactions As the only sentence in that section, it is highly weighted towards a recentist perspective revolving around LENR of the fringe researcher rather than the historic position of cold fusion.

I'm trying to summarize some of the longer sections in single succinct paragraphs. I may have done a bad job, but please edit rather than simply revert, I beg. I would like to extend to you the same invitation that was presented to me when I first edited the CF topic as a CF proponent. Your rational was 'Wiki-proper', but entirely bogus. Based on the rational provided, you and naval apparently do not know: the difference between a citation in an original article and the original work in the article; the reference articles you deleted; or anything about the topic you are editing.

However, I do not believe that the two of you do not know the difference between cited work and original content. Therefore, the 2nd and 3rd options appear to be the correct interpretation for your status. Naval's condition is different. I would suggest that as a professional but one that has no Wiki-history of any contributions in science topics , you should be willing to disclose who is paying you to edit this topic or be labelled as being an 'expert of a different sort' and having POV that should immediately eliminate your destructive tendencies from the topic.

I would suggest that you are not paid by wikipedia, unless you were specifically tasked to eliminate credible sources from the topic - regardless of the violations the rational entails. Unfortunately, the damage is done. You've done your job. I predict that you will leave the article soon; your position is untenable. I do hope that you lose your autopatrolled rights. Nevertheless, it will take weeks to re-establish the references and content that you deleted. You've also left the warning that no matter what the proponents do, you, or someone like you, will come by and erase their efforts with 30 second edits.

Congratulations on a job well done. Aqm talk , 12 March UTC. This was verified by labs around the world. How then does this article now have a disputatious tone? That is illogical. I don't have time to redo this whole page, but the time has come. I think a lot of readers will wonder why there is no mention of NASA in our article. He will be speaking on the upcoming NETS [13]. Their extremely encouraging results support the game-changing advantages of developing this technology.

While our present test units are at lab bench power levels multi s watts , scaling up to RTG power levels seems quite feasible using larger amounts of nano-particles and an improved heat management de-sign. It obviously does NOT describe the situation in a "cold fusion cell".

Per theoretical explanation section: "Hydrogen and its isotopes can be absorbed in certain solids, including palladium hydride, at high densities. Are you sure you mean low ratios or high ratios? More deuterium is a higher ratio, isn't it? I'm not sure how much information there is about the statistical distribution of inter-deuterium distances when D is dissolved in Pd at any ratio.

It is a very complex set of interlocking electron orbitals in there. I know it is a Conference paper but it may help figure out what the numbers are. Also see graph on page As metallic particles near about 10 nanometers in diameter, classical physics breaks down. The particles begin to demonstrate unique physical and chemical properties that bulk counterparts of the very same materials do not.

A nanoparticle of silver measuring a few atoms across, for instance, will respond to photons and electrons in ways profoundly different from a larger particle or slab of silver. There are lots of sources that talk about a small group, a small community, a few researchers, etc. But none of them gives a exact number. I am not sure of how to address this. Jones, that nuclear fusion might rationalize the data. Our article doesn't even mention the cell explosion, but I think it was Fleischmann's main motivation? In all those years of soap boxing here you didn't read Fleischmann's paper?

Pity he doesn't ask for books Thank you for source code. Recently, The photo does not indicate anything useful about cold fusion. Does anyone else think the photo should be in the article? If so, why? Olorinish talk , 10 April UTC. Enric, I don't have a copy of "Undead Science. Olorinish talk , 7 April UTC. Actually, I tried Google Books but they didn't show those pages.

POVbrigand, please be civil. Requesting pirated content is not allowed. Enric, thank you very much for the email, but I want to revisit this when I can check out the whole thing. By the way, even though I live in one of the 10 largest cities in the US, it has to be an interlibrary loan.

Olorinish talk , 11 April UTC. These two sections have had citation request and POV tags since December , so it is time to address them. I say both should simply be deleted. It has not been established that the amount of energy produced is too large for chemical reactions, while the small quantities of reaction products are addressed in another section.

What do other people think? Olorinish talk , 20 April UTC. Olorinish talk , 27 April UTC. LENR hob nobs with leading nuclear scientists. Presented at the "Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space Topical Meeting" [22] which includes the following and more :. Kim, Department of Physics, Purdue University. Being the final presentation on the Friday of this three day meeting infers significant weight to the attendees.

LENR scientists are welcome in the most revered hallowed halls of physics. This is so worthy of posting in this section. Encyclopedic works concerning science need be reflective of the present state of the art of the environmental, experimental, or observational element of science over the theoretical state of the art. If you and others really really really see something that does not fit theory… theories change while all physical phenomenon are real.

Nano-dimensionality important by itself, as claimed by Y.