Slashdot Mirror

> Cold fusion is bullshit.

Says the Arrogant Coward who pretends to know more then ...

Lockheed Martin:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/...

And the U.S. Navy:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/K...

Your proof is _where_ again?

It could be demonstrated to be fusion by either producing enough heat that it couldn't possibly be a chemical reaction (which didn't happen), or observing neutrons (which were not being generated).

There are lots of peer reviewed papers reporting excess heat well in excess of chemical levels -- papers that have not been even so much as criticized by the true believers in current interpretation of physical theory. See http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/S...

Once we realize that, we realize that Oriani was claiming to violate a whole lot of physical theory with scanty evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Oriani apparently didn't provide that.

You can't have it both ways. You either can have scientific method where experiment is permitted to be published that falsifies currently fashionable interpretation of physical theory, or you can have theocracy. Its that simple. Oriani's experimental evidence was sufficient for Nature's own peer reviewers. It was not a peer-review rejection. It was an editor veto of Nature's own peer reviewers. This is scientific misconduct, pure and simple.

Nature could indeed publish a "cold fusion" paper if somebody definitely had cold fusion going and had good evidence for it.

Nature then proceeded to block additional empirical-only papers from Oriani on the grounds that he offered no theory to explain the results -- results that falsified currently fashionable interpretation of physical theory. Science starts with observation and theory ends with observation that fasifies theory. Nature is engaging in gross scientific misconduct and it is a pattern of behavior.

The test was done in an independent laboratory and Rossi wasn't present. Please read the report first. Then you can comment on it, but not before. Also, you should check the thousands of peer reviewed papers that without any doubt reveal that LENR/Cold Fusion is real. Check: http://lenr-canr.org/

There is many reference to misconduct. One it MIT tweaking of result that their editor (Mallove) have spotted. http://www.infinite-energy.com... http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw... One is Science not correcting errors in caltech paper http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/R... there is also the Oriani paper rejection for no serious reason (theory) there is also the rejection upfront of Report41 of Enea (Denino) showing He4/Heat corelation http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ra... (as 40+ other journals) There is a report by Pamela Mosier Boss, ex SU Navy Spawar, prolific author in Naturwissenshaften and Journal of Electroanalythical Chemistry who complained about emotional behavior in high impact journals http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCM... (page6+ in that proceeding). there are many more to list from the old ape of cold fusion... depending if you search academic misconduct, journal misconduct, insults, horse manure in the mailbox, nasty jokes ruining experiments, sabotaging grants by donators, demoting a researcher to the stock, ... some consider it is normal academic behavior, and it is in a way true, so maybe it is normal. Currently there are many report of similar problem, some by few Nobel like Sheckman or Sidney Brenner, who can afford to moan without being blacklisted. Maybe we cannot change that, not really say it is monstrous, but we should be aware that things works that nasty way, and not be too naive. Sorry for previous coward postings , forgot to logon...

The earliest example (other than F&P's own work on calorimetry which was not, despite loud protestations about their admittedly flawed work on other nuclear products, ever "discredited" -- although it was erroneously criticized to high heaven) was Richard Oriani's replication "CALORIMETRIC MEASUREMENTS OF EXCESS POWER OUTPUT DURING THE CATHODIC CHARGING OF DEUTERIUM INTO PALLADIUM"" which was approved by Nature's own peer reviewers for publication in late 1989. Nature didn't publish it because -- and you'll have to forgive my invocation of Popper's notion of falsifiability here -- the American editor of Nature (the British editor considered it too hot to handle so he passed the buck to the US editor) the experimental results violated physical theory -- and yes, he actually told Oriani that. Theocracy rules.

Once Nature had violated the most basic principles of science in its editorial posture toward so-called "cold fusion" it could never again accept such a paper for review as it would risk, once again, approval from their own peer reviewers.

You make good points on the limits of science. Is is possible there is no hot fusion in the sun, and duplicating such a non-existent phenomenon on Earth has been a fool's errand? See also:
http://www.thesunisiron.com/

I think it possible hydrogen may essentially outgas for statistical reasons at the surface of an iron Sun. It might also be cause by electric currents? http://www.electricuniverse.in...

Then the hydrogen fuses at the surface of the Sun's iron-nickel core. The same process may be happening at a lesser scale deep within the Earth (which has an iron-nickel core), both to cause the Earth's heat by LENR and also to produce upwelling hydrocabons from outgassed hydrogen from all the nickel-iron.

In general, the universe may be mostly iron. The history of the universe may be more about iron decaying into hydrogen (for whatever reasons), rather than hydrogen fusing into (eventually) iron.

The Earth from space looks like it is made of mostly air and water. You can't judge a large object by just what covers it. The sun's surface may be hydrogen, but we don't really know for sure what is inside -- it is all indirect guessing. What we know is that the Earth has an iron-nickel core. So why not the sun?

Science is full of data that gets reinterpreted decades later. It was well accepted the Sun was made of Iron until re-interpretation of data in the Early 1900s. Maybe it is time for another bug re-interpretation? Perhaps inspired by the recent scientific reports related to cold fusion / LENR?
http://lenr-canr.org/

Of course, I am at a loss how to disprove my hypothesis... Perhaps people here might suggest ways to do that.

An exhaustive collection of published papers concerning low energy nuclear phenomena can be found at http://lenr-canr.org/

recently Hitachi has replicated Mitsubishi's "low energy nuclear transmutation".

to be able to understand how confused you are start with reading this peer reviewed paper from 2002: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYelementalaa.pdf

better stop using "cold fusion" as an example for crackpot science.

spot on.

The sealand process back in the 1970's.

They used a stirling cycle engine (another old tech for you young whippersnappers) to liquify the CO2 then made methol alcohol.
Hydrogen was obtained via splitting water.

(And as for "cold fusion fraud" or "net energy" upthread:
1) it may be garden-common fraud as in "investors told X and X is a lie made to seperate them from thier cash" instead of "press announcement made and turns out can't be reproduced." Unless you mean that cold fusion works and the frand is that most think it does not
2) VS what - having photons make plant matter long before humans were around, that plant matter gets compressed and heated then far, far, later Man shows up, finds a pool of oil/hunk of coal and declares "Net energy of this stuff I found starts off at 0" vs "Hey! the amount of photons needed to make the coal/oil is far more than the amount of photons needed to make this 'air to fuel' process work. And to do this calculation don't we need to assign a 'time value' to a photon from centries ago?")

"Practical cold fusion, or anything that delivers on the promises of cold fusion, would nail it."

On cold fusion, see:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/03/dr-george-miley-to-present-on-lenr-at-march-23-conference-will-awareness-of-new-energy-source-spread/
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=522

The Widom-Larsen idea is that strange things happen at the surface of metals, where protons and electrons can become slow neutrons which then are absorbed which leads to conventional radioactive decay.

Or on solar panels, a commend by the director of GE's research lab:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

In theory, to have space habitats, all we really need to do is launch one robotic seed factory to the moon, and then have it make all the space craft and habitats there. No need for CO2. And rising CO2 is really the least of our problems as a species -- it may already have forestalled another ice age we are due for. Much of it may have come from topsoil depletion by bad farming practices, too. That is solveable with relatively small amounts of energy and materials like so by grinding up rock: http://remineralize.org/

A little idea sketch I made about three years ago of what it would take to evacuate all humans from the Earth into space habitats:
http://p2pfoundation.net/backups/p2p_research-archives/2009-August/004037.html
"Current launch costs are about US$10,000 a pound. People on starvation diets might weigh about 100 pounds. So, that's about US$1 million per person for launch costs using today's technology in small production runs. I feel it reasonable to assume that if we were going to launch billions of people into space, launch costs would come down by at least a factor of ten to US$100K per person, considering how people are already talking about such lower costs, and the actual energy to lift someone into space if you can do it really efficiently (space elevator) is maybe US$200 worth of electricity ... So, seven billion people soon, minus a few doomsters, times US$100K per person, is US$700 trillion. The world GDP is about US$60 trillion, so, in round numbers, this is about ten years of world economic output to put everyone into space. We can assume that with these self-replicating space habitat seeds that an entire space infrastructure is being prepared for free from sunlight and lunar ore and asteroidal ore (though it might take some time to produce it on an exponential growth curve). So, we only need to get people into low Earth orbit and shuttles can ferry people without luggage beyond low Earth orbit to a life of abundance produced with resources from space. Also, since we're evacuating the entire planet to leave it as a nature park, we don't need to do any upkeep on infrastructure as it is all abandoned. So, we can devote close to 100% of the industrial base to producing rockets. Also, people in space can still provide services to Earth like telemedicine or teleoperating mining equipment and launch control, so essential services can be kept going the whole time even as the last person goes on the last rocket (except the doomsters who want to stay :-)."

Of course, we could ask, how many times has this been done before over the last few billion years? :-)

Thanks for your other comment too (which this kind of addresses in part as well). Good luck with your robotics work. Robots could be a boon instead of a bane as long as we adjust our economy to a post-scarcity model. One example I put together:
"The Riches

Thanks. Please also see my point on four interwoven economic alternatives (gift, exchange, subsistence, planned) in reply to someone who disagreed with you.

By the way, "disruptive" energy technology is just around the corner:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

And if that was not enough, maybe even "cold fusion" which is becoming understood as actually just a proton plus a metal-surface electron becoming a neutron and being absorbed by nearby matter, leading to standard radioactive decay:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm
http://pesn.com/2012/01/13/9602010_NASA_LENR_endorsement_spin_cycle_to_clear_past_suppression/

Thorium power (being pursued by the Chinese and Indians) is another energy alternative, too.

Give me a break, "ecatnews" just happened to have the best quote from this NASA engineer. His quote remains nonetheless correct.

Come back with some quality studies published in reputable journals and reproduced by numerous credible scientists, and we'll talk.

You do realize it is impossible to reach this situation if everyone had your mindset... You have to have people "crazy enough" to remotely believe in the possibility of LENR to study it and eventually prove it or disprove it. Your behavior is exactly what has been holding back LENR research for 20 years. Instead of bluntly rejecting it, you should be open-minded and support the current research, even if you currently don't believe in it.

For the record the Focardi report was published in a peer-reviewed journal (Il Nuovo Cimento).

Thermacore (DARPA contractor) reported anomalous heat in Ni-H cells: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

Very recently at the WSEC 2012 conference, Celani also reported excess heat: http://www.22passi.it/downloads/WSEC2012%20Present.pdf

So, technically speaking, I agree with you, no one can unambiguously prove LENR today. I am just pointing out research and experiments that indicate there are datapoints that current theories cannot explain, and that we may be at the verge of finally proving LENR.

That's easy.

It's the calorimetry, nuclear ash, NAA and SIMS spectra documented in the hundreds of papers available here: http://lenr-canr.org/FilesByDate.htm.

You are wrong. The anomalous heat detected in some experiments is statistically significant. Just one example: in a 1998 experiment, Focardi had set up a cell that ran continuously for 278 days and produced an excess power of about 900 megajoule: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf

The problem is that this experiment, and many others, despite providing very interesting results, have been mostly ignored by the scientific community purely because of the stigma associated to Cold Fusion research. This is frustrating!

The submitter is also incorrect when saying that Rossi provided no details about how his reactors work. He explained that (a) he processes the nickel powder to create tubercles and enhance its contact surface with hydrogen, (b) he uses 2 nickel isotopes to enhance the reaction, (c) he splits molecular hydrogen (H2) into atomic hydrogen (H1), (d) he uses high pressure and temperature to initiates the reaction, etc.

I used to think that Rossi's E-Cat was a scam, but after researching deeply the subject, I am now convinced this guy might be onto something, see this post I wrote explaining many Cold Fusion experiments that seem to support Rossi and that have been ignored by the community at large: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=61

And here are some more reasons I sent to Rossi: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
"The key point here is that breakthrough clean energy technologies will change the very nature of our economic system. They will shift the balance between four different interwoven economies we have always had (subsistence, gift, planned, and exchange). Inventors who have struggled so hard in a system currently dominated by exchange may have to think about the socioecenomic implications of their invention in causing a permanent economic phase change. A clean energy breakthrough will probably create a different balance of those four economies like toward greater local subsistence and more gift giving (as James P. Hogan talks about in Voyage From Yesteryear). So, to focus on making money in the old socioeconomic paradigm (like by focusing on restrictive patents) may be very ironic, compared to freely sharing a great gift with the world that may change the overall dynamics of our economy to the point where money does not matter very much anymore. ..."

Others calling to open source the eCat:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/11/open-source-the-e-cat/

By the way, the catalyst may be some variant on Potasium Carbonate:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

Mentioned here by "Sojourner Soo", with the abstract from 1994:
http://ecatnews.com/?p=1144
"Anomalous heat was measured from a reaction of atomic hydrogen in contact with potassium carbonate on a nickel surface. The nickel surface consisted of 500 feet of 0.0625 inch diameter tubing wrapped in a coil. The coil was inserted into a pressure vessel containing a light water solution of potassium carbonate. The tubing and solution were heated to a steady state temperature of 249 C using an FR heater. Hydrogen at 1100 psig was applied to the inside of the tubing. After the application of hydrogen, a 32 C increase in temperature of the cell was measured which corresponds to 25 watts of heat. Heat production under these conditions is predicted by the theory of Mills where a new species of hydrogen is produced that has a lower energy state then normal hydrogen."

In the 1950s (or maybe 1930s) a Princeton physicist was talking about some similar things (forget his name offhand).

Rossi could have ended almost all dispute by just running two eCats side-by-side, one with the catalyst and one without. Or even just one with the hydrogen and one without, where people picked the one getting the hydrogen. That would rule out many things. (Maybe not all, but a lot.) The fact that he has not done that, which would be relatively easy, makes me more suspicious that it really works (although people have invented explanations for why he has not done that).

What has been said by Steven Krivit is the suggestion that LENR (cold fusion) does work, but not as well as Rossi suggests it does (and he has been still trying to get it to work well).

Still, it is so hard to be an innovator in our society, that I could cut Rossi a lot of slack. Just maybe not a check yet. :-)

But sooner or later we will get cheap energy, one way or another, so many people are working towards it. Even just from solar:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

Or thorium, or hot fusion, or geothermal, or whatever...

But the eCat would be a great mobile power device.

Of course, if it does work, it is only one more reason we need to rethink our outlook on nature, technology, society, and economics:
htt

Looks like it was repeatable last time http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf

A friend of mine at NRL thinks it is a lattice effect http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChubbSRresonantel.pdf

The frog still gets the same effect when hopping. Also, you might want to start crossing cold fusion off the auto-mock list: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf

"cold fusion"

You do realise that, snide 'science' writers to the contrary, anomalous heat production in deuterated systems has long been proven to be a real effect, right?

http://www.lenr-canr.org/

The problem is that we don't currently have an acceptable mainstream theory for it, not that evidence for the thing itself doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, normal science at high levels seems to involve discrediting evidence that the incumbents don't like - and that's a big problem.

Actually, Fusion power is today. Check out the http://www.lenr-canr.org/ website to learn more. Now we just have to convince those distinguished, elderly scientists.. As for AGI, people making those predictions 50 years ago were fresh and didn't really understand the scope of the problem. They thought that creating the intelligence of a 6 year old would be easy and playing chess would be the difficult problem... The predictions of AGI researchers today will probably be much more accurate.

Here you go.

Ah yes, pick out one or two things, lump everything together and call it all bad. The low energy nuclear reaction field has grown remarkably diverse in terms of methods and results and cannot be dismissed that easily. The basic reality of such nuclear reactions it most utterly and undeniably obvious from the experiments that show the creation of new isotopes and elements where there were previously none. See these papers for some examples: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf, http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArapiAexperiment.pdf, http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJmicroanaly.pdf

As to energy production, there are actually plasma experiments with kilowatts of excess energy. But I suggest you read some of more papers first.

Ah yes, pick out one or two things, lump everything together and call it all bad. The low energy nuclear reaction field has grown remarkably diverse in terms of methods and results and cannot be dismissed that easily. The basic reality of such nuclear reactions it most utterly and undeniably obvious from the experiments that show the creation of new isotopes and elements where there were previously none. See these papers for some examples: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf, http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArapiAexperiment.pdf, http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJmicroanaly.pdf

As to energy production, there are actually plasma experiments with kilowatts of excess energy. But I suggest you read some of more papers first.

Ah yes, pick out one or two things, lump everything together and call it all bad. The low energy nuclear reaction field has grown remarkably diverse in terms of methods and results and cannot be dismissed that easily. The basic reality of such nuclear reactions it most utterly and undeniably obvious from the experiments that show the creation of new isotopes and elements where there were previously none. See these papers for some examples: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf, http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArapiAexperiment.pdf, http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJmicroanaly.pdf

As to energy production, there are actually plasma experiments with kilowatts of excess energy. But I suggest you read some of more papers first.

Ah yes, pick out one or two things, lump everything together and call it all bad. The low energy nuclear reaction field has grown remarkably diverse in terms of methods and results and cannot be dismissed that easily. The basic reality of such nuclear reactions it most utterly and undeniably obvious from the experiments that show the creation of new isotopes and elements where there were previously none. See these papers for some examples: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHnucleartra.pdf, http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArapiAexperiment.pdf, http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DashJmicroanaly.pdf

As to energy production, there are actually plasma experiments with kilowatts of excess energy. But I suggest you read some of more papers first.

Cold fusion was a hoax. Get over it.

You are ignorant. Fleischman and Pons believed in the reality of their findings. So it was obviously not a hoax. And many others have corroborated their findings through a variety of experiments: excess heat, neutron emission, tritium/helium production, non-natural-abundance isotope ratios, elemental transmutation, and on the list goes. A large number of these results were obtained using experimental techniques, such as mass spectrometry, that leave no room for ambiguity. I suggest you read some research articles before commenting further.

What has changed, though, is that people no longer adhere to the interpretation that the excess heat is the result of a classic (D+D->He or otherwise) fusion reaction. That is why the label "cold fusion" is no longer in fashion. Nuclear reactions are being enabled, but the mechanism is enigmatic. Many tentative theories trying to explain it have been forwarded.

Name one that is "implemented and reproduced" that is "beyond currently accepted physical science".

The most well-known and well-corroborated example goes by the name of "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" (formerly known as "Cold Fusion"). In spite of all the efforts to repress and ridicule it, the diligent and mostly unfunded efforts of thousands of scientists in hundreds of labs have, over the past twenty years, established the reality of it beyond a shadow of a doubt. The following site provides and overview: http://www.lenr-canr.org/

My vote is cold fusion lenr/canr (cold fusion)

Here is an excellent discussion from Brian D. Josephson about state of research. Skeptics please read.

summary
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JosephsonBabstractfo.pdf
full article
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JosephsonBpathologic.pdf

"They never debunked excess heat claims but they did have errors in nuclear measurements" so they threw the baby out with the bathwater.

There are many processes not fully described by current theory, like Superconductivity yet we deployed a commercial power line in manhattan.

Still waiting for Kuhn "paradigm shift".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

"As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science."

My vote is cold fusion lenr/canr (cold fusion)

Here is an excellent discussion from Brian D. Josephson about state of research. Skeptics please read.

summary
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JosephsonBabstractfo.pdf
full article
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JosephsonBpathologic.pdf

"They never debunked excess heat claims but they did have errors in nuclear measurements" so they threw the baby out with the bathwater.

There are many processes not fully described by current theory, like Superconductivity yet we deployed a commercial power line in manhattan.

Still waiting for Kuhn "paradigm shift".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

"As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science."

I remember the result of a similar study done years ago on an Italian research agency ( http://www.frascati.enea.it/nhe/index-eng.htm ), one of the published report is available at: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DeNinnoAexperiment.pdf

"The acoustic surface plasmon, which will have implications for developments in nano-optics, high-temperature superconductors, and the fundamental understanding of chemical reactions on surfaces."

What about the understanding of nuclear reactions on metal surfaces ?

Sure: http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html has mostly experimental links but you might look at things by S. Chubb (NRL) or P.L. Hagelstein (MIT) who are kind of rivals. Chubb's work tends to be towards coherence in the presence of boundy conditions looking especially at a low branching ratio D+D->He4 symetric reation while Hagelstein tends to take a quantum tunneling approach.

I think I remeber that some of the references in this review http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinnewphys ica.pdf to the "heat after death" effect described buckets of water evaporating. For most experiments they try to keep delta T low because they are trying to get an accurate energy measurement using flow calorimeters.
--
Mr. Fusion on your roof: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Yup, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reaction. There is quite a lot that is published here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/. The SPAWARS work is quite impressive, with more links to it at http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm.
--
Get fusion now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Yup, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reaction. There is quite a lot that is published here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/. The SPAWARS work is quite impressive, with more links to it at http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm.
--
Get fusion now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

The "Cold Fusion" field has seen many more experimental successes: detection of neutrons, tritium, helium, transmutations of heavier elements, non-natural-abundance isotope ratios, detection of ionizing radiation. The best place to visit for an overview of the field is http://www.lenr-canr.org/.

Though the experiments are remarkable, no concensus on the theory has emerged yet. Nuclear reactions are clearly happening, but it is doubtful that it is conventional fusion, that is, nuclei moving fast enough to surmount their mutual Coulombic repulsion. Something seems to be screening or catalysing the reactions.

Just in case if someone wants to read about this issue:

• LENR-CANR repository of documents related to research
  
• Purdue story details about Bubble Fusion controversy
  
• Extraordinary evidence of Cold Fusion Very important: "The smoking gun" showing that CF really exist
  

Making no claim to an understanding of the result, I would just point out that they were working with deuterium, a nuclear boson rather than hydrogen, a fermion. In fact, hydrogen was used as a control. Theoretical work that I know of concentrates on direct to helium fusion without any neutron production. The ideas that I am aware of, expressed by Scott Chubb, center on coherent boosting of a low branching ratio D-D->He4 reaction.

With the bubble fusion, the idea is that it is conventional hot fusion on a small scale so D+D->He3+n would be more conventionally represented and neutrons would be expected.

Both ideas are pretty facinating and with the claimed replication of bubble fusion, perhaps the numerous claimed replications of cold fusion http://www.lenr-canr.org/, will receive closer attention.
--
D fusion hot, D fusion cold, H fusion in the pot eight minutes old: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

This is about bubble fusion. Those interested in cold fusion should look here http://www.lenr-canr.org/.
--
Get hot fusion: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Regarding the Bose-Einstein condensate.
Maybe finally someone will find explanation for Bose Nova phenomenon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosenova

It's like small thermonuclear explosion and seems like good explanation of all that Cold Fusion stuff:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/

Details are hereby requested. I've also looked with some interest at what is going on at http://www.lenr-canr.org/ in terms of transmutaion. We need some serious solutions to nuclear waste because we have a very serious problem as things stand now.

Why we are going to wait another 20-30 years if there is another much better possibility?
Remember Cold Fusion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

It's working!

SPAWAR scientists got simple, portable, highly repeatable, unambiguous, and permanent physical evidence of nuclear events using detectors that have a long track record of reliability and acceptance among nuclear physicists.
Forget your preconceptions, says scientist at Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR). "We've done the experiments, and we have the data."

Using a unique experimental method called co-deposition, combined with the application of external electric and magnetic fields, and recording the results with standard nuclear-industry CR-39 polimer detectors, SPAWAR scientists: Pamela Mosier-Boss and Stan Szpak have produced what may be the most convincing evidence yet in the pursuit of proof of low energy nuclear reactions.

Read more here:
http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm#ee

What independed experts say?
Gary W. Phillips, a nuclear physicist and expert in CR-39 detectors is similarly surprised by what he saw in SPAWAR's detectors. Phillips has used the detectors to record nuclear events for two decades.

He said that the tracks recorded in SPAWAR's CR-39 experiments are "at least one order of magnitude greater" in number than those in any other conventional nuclear experiments he's seen.

The evidence recorded in SPAWAR Systems Center's CR-39 detectors are "at least one order of magnitude greater" in number than those in any other conventional nuclear experiments he's seen in his 20 years of related experience.

"I've never seen such a high density of tracks before," Phillips noted. "It would have to be from a very intense source - a nuclear source. You cannot get this from any kind of chemical reaction.

Seems that Fleischmann and Pons should got they Nobel prize soon.

Is that end of The Fossil Fuels Era?

For more information about "Cold Fusion" (Lenr-Canr) please refer here:

        * Web repository with all documentation in that field (maintained by Jed Rothwell):
            http://www.lenr-canr.org/

        * An free E-book about Cold Fusion:
            http://lenr-canr.org/BookBlurb.htm

        * Last international conference in that field:
            http://www.iccf12.org/

        * Next conference about Cold Fusion:
            http://www.iscmns.org/iccf13/

So, putting money into Hot Fusion development looks like wasting of resources for me.

Happy reading!

Best regards, /Z

Why we are going to wait another 20-30 years if there is another much better possibility?
Remember Cold Fusion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

It's working!

SPAWAR scientists got simple, portable, highly repeatable, unambiguous, and permanent physical evidence of nuclear events using detectors that have a long track record of reliability and acceptance among nuclear physicists.
Forget your preconceptions, says scientist at Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR). "We've done the experiments, and we have the data."

Using a unique experimental method called co-deposition, combined with the application of external electric and magnetic fields, and recording the results with standard nuclear-industry CR-39 polimer detectors, SPAWAR scientists: Pamela Mosier-Boss and Stan Szpak have produced what may be the most convincing evidence yet in the pursuit of proof of low energy nuclear reactions.

Read more here:
http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm#ee

What independed experts say?
Gary W. Phillips, a nuclear physicist and expert in CR-39 detectors is similarly surprised by what he saw in SPAWAR's detectors. Phillips has used the detectors to record nuclear events for two decades.

He said that the tracks recorded in SPAWAR's CR-39 experiments are "at least one order of magnitude greater" in number than those in any other conventional nuclear experiments he's seen.

The evidence recorded in SPAWAR Systems Center's CR-39 detectors are "at least one order of magnitude greater" in number than those in any other conventional nuclear experiments he's seen in his 20 years of related experience.

"I've never seen such a high density of tracks before," Phillips noted. "It would have to be from a very intense source - a nuclear source. You cannot get this from any kind of chemical reaction.

Seems that Fleischmann and Pons should got they Nobel prize soon.

Is that end of The Fossil Fuels Era?

For more information about "Cold Fusion" (Lenr-Canr) please refer here:

        * Web repository with all documentation in that field (maintained by Jed Rothwell):
            http://www.lenr-canr.org/

        * An free E-book about Cold Fusion:
            http://lenr-canr.org/BookBlurb.htm

        * Last international conference in that field:
            http://www.iccf12.org/

        * Next conference about Cold Fusion:
            http://www.iscmns.org/iccf13/

So, putting money into Hot Fusion development looks like wasting of resources for me.

Happy reading!

Best regards, /Z

Simple, portable, highly repeatable, unambiguous, and permanent physical evidence of nuclear events using detectors that have a long track record of reliability and acceptance among nuclear physicists.
Forget your preconceptions, says scientist at Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR). "We've done the experiments, and we have the data."

Using a unique experimental method called co-deposition, combined with the application of external electric and magnetic fields, and recording the results with standard nuclear-industry CR-39 polimer detectors, SPAWAR scientists: Pamela Mosier-Boss and Stan Szpak have produced what may be the most convincing evidence yet in the pursuit of proof of low energy nuclear reactions.

"Gary W. Phillips, a nuclear physicist and expert in CR-39 detectors is similarly surprised by what he saw in SPAWAR's detectors. Phillips has used the detectors to record nuclear events for two decades.
He said that the tracks recorded in SPAWAR's CR-39 experiments are "at least one order of magnitude greater" in number than those in any other conventional nuclear experiments he's seen.

The evidence recorded in SPAWAR Systems Center's CR-39 detectors are "at least one order of magnitude greater" in number than those in any other conventional nuclear experiments he's seen in his 20 years of related experience.

"I've never seen such a high density of tracks before," Phillips noted.

"It would have to be from a very intense source - a nuclear source.
You cannot get this from any kind of chemical reaction.

• Web repository with all documentation in that field (maintained by Jed Rothwell): Lenr-Canr
• An free E-book about Cold Fusion: Cold Fusion and the Future
• Last international conference in that field: ICCF12
• Next conference about Cold Fusion: ICCF13

Simple, portable, highly repeatable, unambiguous, and permanent physical evidence of nuclear events using detectors that have a long track record of reliability and acceptance among nuclear physicists.
Forget your preconceptions, says scientist at Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR). "We've done the experiments, and we have the data."

Using a unique experimental method called co-deposition, combined with the application of external electric and magnetic fields, and recording the results with standard nuclear-industry CR-39 polimer detectors, SPAWAR scientists: Pamela Mosier-Boss and Stan Szpak have produced what may be the most convincing evidence yet in the pursuit of proof of low energy nuclear reactions.

"Gary W. Phillips, a nuclear physicist and expert in CR-39 detectors is similarly surprised by what he saw in SPAWAR's detectors. Phillips has used the detectors to record nuclear events for two decades.
He said that the tracks recorded in SPAWAR's CR-39 experiments are "at least one order of magnitude greater" in number than those in any other conventional nuclear experiments he's seen.

The evidence recorded in SPAWAR Systems Center's CR-39 detectors are "at least one order of magnitude greater" in number than those in any other conventional nuclear experiments he's seen in his 20 years of related experience.

"I've never seen such a high density of tracks before," Phillips noted.

"It would have to be from a very intense source - a nuclear source.
You cannot get this from any kind of chemical reaction.

• Web repository with all documentation in that field (maintained by Jed Rothwell): Lenr-Canr
• An free E-book about Cold Fusion: Cold Fusion and the Future
• Last international conference in that field: ICCF12
• Next conference about Cold Fusion: ICCF13

Someone wrote:

"But yeah, if P&F had been onto something then they would be dead, and there were too many people trying to repeat their results for it all to have been a conspiracy to discredit them."

Within a year, 92 world-class labs did replicate P&F. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf

Subsequently, hundreds of labs replicated the, and thousands of papers were published, including about a thousand in long-established mainstream peer-reviwed journals. Two oil companies were among those labs. See, for example:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfus ion.pdf

Cold fusion has been effectively suppressed by the DoE, the APS, the Washington Post and others without a consipracy, violence or anything of the sort. They use ridicule, ad hominum attacks, and baseless lies and rumors like the ones posted here, that the effect was never replicated. They ignore the actual scientific record and make up facts as they go along. You can see some recent examples here:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm

- Jed Rothwell
Librarian
LENR-CANR.org

Someone wrote:

"But yeah, if P&F had been onto something then they would be dead, and there were too many people trying to repeat their results for it all to have been a conspiracy to discredit them."

Within a year, 92 world-class labs did replicate P&F. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf

Subsequently, hundreds of labs replicated the, and thousands of papers were published, including about a thousand in long-established mainstream peer-reviwed journals. Two oil companies were among those labs. See, for example:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfus ion.pdf

Cold fusion has been effectively suppressed by the DoE, the APS, the Washington Post and others without a consipracy, violence or anything of the sort. They use ridicule, ad hominum attacks, and baseless lies and rumors like the ones posted here, that the effect was never replicated. They ignore the actual scientific record and make up facts as they go along. You can see some recent examples here:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm

- Jed Rothwell
Librarian
LENR-CANR.org

Someone wrote:

"But yeah, if P&F had been onto something then they would be dead, and there were too many people trying to repeat their results for it all to have been a conspiracy to discredit them."

Within a year, 92 world-class labs did replicate P&F. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf

Subsequently, hundreds of labs replicated the, and thousands of papers were published, including about a thousand in long-established mainstream peer-reviwed journals. Two oil companies were among those labs. See, for example:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfus ion.pdf

Cold fusion has been effectively suppressed by the DoE, the APS, the Washington Post and others without a consipracy, violence or anything of the sort. They use ridicule, ad hominum attacks, and baseless lies and rumors like the ones posted here, that the effect was never replicated. They ignore the actual scientific record and make up facts as they go along. You can see some recent examples here:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm

- Jed Rothwell
Librarian
LENR-CANR.org

http://www.enterprisemission.com/
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
http://www.divinecosmos.com/
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://www.biocybernaut.com/
http://www.lod.org/
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
http://www.sitchin.com/
http://www.lenr-canr.org/
http://www.zptech.net/
http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/dag/meditationroom.htm
http://www.starchildproject.com/

That should keep everybody busy ..