Slashdot Mirror
The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real
StartsWithABang writes If you can reach the fabled "breakeven point" of nuclear fusion, you'll have opened up an entire new source of clean, reliable, safe, renewable and abundant energy. You will change the world. At present, fusion is one of those things we can make happen through a variety of methods, but — unless you're the Sun — we don't have a way to ignite and sustain that reaction without needing to input more energy than we can extract in a usable fashion from the fusion that occurs. One alternative approach to the norm is, rather than try and up the energy released in a sustained, hot fusion reaction, to instead lower the energy inputted, and try to make fusion happen under "cold" conditions. If you listen in the right (wrong?) places, you'll hear periodic reports that cold fusion is happening, even though those reports have always crumbled under scrutiny. Here's why, most likely, they always will.
Ethan Siegel writes: "All good science is repeatable: set up an experiment, tell me how you did it, report your results, and with the proper equipment, I should be able to set up a similar experiment, do the same things you did and get the same results. If I can’t, and others can’t, you didn’t do good science."
Oh yeah?
The preamble to the DoE's 1989 cold fusion review panel's report reads:
"Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary." --Norman Ramsey
Dr. Norman Ramsey Jr., Nobel laureate and professor of physics at Harvard University was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. The committee acquiesed because he was its co-chair and the only Nobel laureate on the committee.
Dr. Ramsey's condition has been fulfilled hundreds of times over the last quarter century and there has been absolutely no acknowledgement by the APS of its crime.
Los Alamos nuclear chemist Ed Storms's peer reviewed paper published in the German counterpart of the British "Nature":
Status of Cold-Fusion (2010)
Seastead this.
Heavier than air flight is impossible...the world will only ever need 5 computers...no home will ever need a computer...people don't need a computer with more the 16 megabytes of RAM...
Cold fusion is bollocks. Scientist knows this and summarises to create blog entry.
Good luck with that. If anyone ever succeeds in LENR, the only convincing evidence will be a working industrial plant. Nobody in their right mind would release sufficient details to fully replicate before that... this would be a world-changing discovery of incalculable value. Trade secret at all costs.
I've spent years trying to pretend that Coldfusion isn't real, but somehow I keep running into it now and then.
This PSA has been brought to you by the Vulcan Science Directorate.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
As I recall, only some of the samples prepared by identical methods displayed superconductivity. Eventually fabrication became reliable, but it took considerable time. Granted, superconductivity is a whole lot easier to measure than excess heat on the scale that some LENR experiments claim to produce.
and think of the children who blow up themselves on old landmines. If we cleared mine fields by following simple mathematical rules we could befriend tiny anthropomorphical suns and ask them to solve our civilsational problem of power and energy for a few millenia.
Trade secret? Hell no. A working implementation needs to be patented. Trade secrets are exactly the wrong solution for protecting a mechanical invention. They're fine for code/algorithms and formulas, but not for anything mechanical.
The right solution is to get as much of the ambiguous detail of one working power plant complete (under the guise of a coal plant or something) and then build in the technology worth protecting immediately upon gaining Patent Pending status. Then, once the plant goes online and produces power successfully, submit evidence alongside the submission of its functionality.
bam, invention protected and secretly implemented all at once.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
I disagree.
Anyone with enough braincells to contribute to such an important discovery would inevitably know what an important boon limitless free, clean energy would be to the world.
The weight on their conscious would compel them to leak the information.
1. Powered Flight
2. Bending Light
3. Traveling Greater than 300mph
4. Transparent Aluminum
5. Artificial Diamonds
All of these "Feats" of human ingenuity were once thought to be impossible by the physics standards of the day.
Physics and our understanding of it, continues to evolve every moment we live.
To say the words "It Cannot Be Done" after seeing all we have done already... Is kind of foolish.
We will learn how to accomplish this feat, or one very similar that accomplishes the same goal, Eventually...
That, is the power of Consciousness My Friends.
All hail the thinking, reasoning, Problem Solving, Human Consciousness!
If I were to discover it, I'd sure as hell publish how to do it before I got assassinated or something.
Ezekiel 23:20
Ethan Siegel writes: "All good science is repeatable: set up an experiment, tell me how you did it, report your results, and with the proper equipment, I should be able to set up a similar experiment, do the same things you did and get the same results. If I can’t, and others can’t, you didn’t do good science."
A result not consistently repeatable could be due to chicanery, or a failure to understand all factors that had bearing on the outcome. In either case a lack of consistency does not disprove.
Every 6 months or so so called real scientist produce new studies showing what food I should be eating. Then in six months the studies will be counteracted and a new way to eat will be proven. So does this mean the universe is somehow playing tricks on dieticians, and what was heathly in the 1940's is no longer fit for humans in the 2014's? I submit that the same thing could be happening with cold fusion. What ever hocus pocus was used to get the scientifically valid result in 1994 may not necessarily work in 2014. It makes sense to me.
Now with even more unreadable medium.com links!
"Here's why, most likely, they always will."
End of story.
Now that a scientist from Europe has achieved cold fusion and an "adversary" stands to win the great energy race, of course loads of bullshit and stories of great fusion breakthroughs from the U.S military sector has to be spewn out, to try to detract from what Mr. Rossi has achieved.
Maybe Russia actually has LENR and never told anyone.
Maybe that is why Russia is so cold. And bitter.
A patent only matters if those who you are trying to protect against are under (or cave or submit) to the jurisdiction of the region in which the patent is held. Unless you file a patent in every single industrialized nation for something as significant as this, and the idea is to make money, the better option is to keep it a trade secret so you don't need to disclose any details that those outside of the jurisdiction of the patent don't have the details handed to them.
If you patent it, and the government considers it valuable enough, they can just take the patent (and classify it so that you can't reveal it).
If you patent it, and you don't have a stable of lawyers and an indefinitely large war chest, then a major corporation can just take it, rephrase the patent, and patent it themselves.
If it's a trade secret, and you can produce a working plant (wouldn't need to be more than a pilot plant) then you can sell the secret to someone who can afford to get into patent battles.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Quantum Physics is funny. It is possible to make electrons think they are heavy. And if they think they are heavy then maybe nuclei can fuse.
You are pointing out the lack of repeatable instructions, which is a good objection to cold fusion. I always had problems with the basic physics of could fusion that nobody has been able to explain away.
Pressure is equivalent to temperature, one begets the other. Since all cases of observable fusion requires high pressure, explain to me how you are going to get the pressure without the temperature? Are you going to crazy glue the atoms together?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
because we all haven't exploded in a violent burst of clean, reliable, safe, renewable and abundant energy.
I find it amusing how people continuously claim to "know" what is and isn't possible based on our infinitesimally short stint into the sciences. We have had electricity in any meaningful fashion for what, 120 years? I'm not saying that cold fusion is possible, and even if it is it may take a society that has been advancing technologically for over a million years to achieve it. But we aren't even children when it comes to knowing the intricacies of the universe, we're a few cells dividing. Claiming what is or isn't possible is premature to say the least.
Only the sun you say?
A hydrogen bomb yields more energy than was put it, by a large margin.
We can do fusion, we just cannot control it yet.
Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
Good thing you've invested in Lockheed! They're going to build a fusion reactor soon!
This group has been installing practical cold fusion systems for many years. Reach out to them if you are interested in practical power generation. witts.ws
Let's make a bet then. You pay me $1 if there is no credible commercially utilized cold fusion by 2024. I'll pay you $10,000 if there is. And please don't bother me until then.
Bruce Perens.
see muon-catalyzed fusion (Wikipedia). This is a very real example of peer-reviewed and repeatable cold-fusion. Is this the only way to overcome the coulomb barrier and accomplish cold-fusion? Probably not...
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
So a self-important skeptic is telling us something is impossible? That's it folks, I guess we should stop trying anything difficult.
I see that you are attempting to use cold fusion. Do be advised that cold fusion is unsupported. If you require assistance with coldfusion you will need to engage your developers or 3rd party assistance.
The article seems to contradict itself:
While perpetual motion machines would violate known physical phenomena—like the conservation of energy—cold fusion is possible in principle.
Oh, so it's possible!
The combination of the energy barrier of normal matter, the Coulomb barrier of individual nuclei, the negligibly low probability of quantum tunneling at all but the shortest distances, and the fact that the physics of nuclear reactions is so incredibly well-understood (and verified) all tells us that low-energy cold fusion should be impossible.
Oh, so it's impossible. But even here, don't you mean it's just unlikely?
Even though I’m a theoretical physicist myself, I’m open to the possibility that physics has it wrong, and that cold fusion could be possible
Wait, you said it was possible in principle. Now you're saying that cold fusion contradicts theory.
And don't forget the crow NY-Times had to eat in an apology to R. Goddard after claiming rockets wouldn't work in the vacuum of space.
http://www.popsci.com/military...
Table-ized A.I.
...Warm Fusion anyone?
Table-ized A.I.
I'd like to know how elemental hydrogen is a renewable source of energy. Sure you could rip apart the more complex elements that are the product of said fusion to make more hydrogen, but that's hardly what I consider "renewable".
As for the viability of cold fusion, it's a great software tool, but I don't think it's got much of a future as a solution for any energy crisis.
Lastly, you can't ever extract more energy than you put in. The fact we get energy out of fusion is because that energy is already packed in the element itself. All the elements have this capability, it's just that some elements are more ready to release the energy. Eventually you use up all the hydrogen and the other elements become progressively more difficult to extract the energy from. There is no miracle solution, except to be conservative with our use of energy.
It's not the hydrogen, it is everything else that is wrong about it.
The US Navy had these Zeppelin clones, and they crashed every one save the Los Angeles from flying into bad weather, which for a rigid airship, appears to be anything other than a perfect sunny day.
A patent will just be violated, and completely ignored. Keeping it secret is the way to go, similar to Heinlein's Shipstones. Place a tamper-resistant box at the client's location, set a meter to charge by the watt-hour, and be done with it. Someone tries breaking into the box, it completely obliterates anything inside showing how it works, or just does a big kaboom, Outer Limits, "Final Exam" style.
On a large scale, build it right on top of a natural gas well. Even though the well is completely empty, nobody will know that and power is power. Done right, one can just use an electric resistance heater to blow hot air out a smokestack so it looks like some combustion is happening. Another option is to use a decommissioned nuclear reactor, pump out some heat to make it look like something is going on, and nobody would even know or care that the electricity came from atoms squeezed together as opposed to blown apart.
How will it be leaked, is the question. Usable energy is money, pure and simple, and a disruption will get people with trillions of dollars at their disposal to hide the info, especially anyone in any energy industry. Someone who doesn't get it out far and wide will be 86-ed quickly, similar to the guy back in the Roman times who discovered aluminum, and was promptly killed for it, making a metal too good for mankind to have.
I'd probably say, it would be impossible, once the device gets past the first person. Someone comes up with a working free energy [1] source, as soon as they show it to someone, the inventor is pretty much dead.
[1]: Realistically working... like in the kilowatt to megawatt range. Some gewgaw powering a millivolt LED for a few seconds doesn't count.
Nature came up with transparent aluminum a long time ago. Most people just call it white sapphire. Now you can argue that sapphire, (aka aluminum oxide) is not aluminum, just like wrought iron, cast iron and iron oxide are not iron. There are several other iron alloys we still call iron, we just add qualifiers like "wrought", "cast", "gray", "white", etc. to indicate which alloy. Just like "transparent" is a qualifier to the aluminum alloy of aluminum oxide. So, while Star Trek made it famous and maybe gave it a new name, it is an accurate name. It is transparent and it is mostly aluminum by weight, and hence is an aluminum alloy now sometimes called "transparent aluminum". It was not invented by man, you can dig it out of the ground.
Actually I can show you limitless, free, clean energy. At 9PM tomorrow eveneing go outside, drive out to the country. Pull up next to any farm. Get out of your vehicle and ...
look up. It's called the Universe. We don't actually know if it is limitless.
I hate reading articles like this because they are simply attempts at character assassination and belittlement of the whole field. With broad generalizations implying fraud like the chess playing robotron, it simply a guilt buy association ad-homen attack (probably by a Koch paid troll). There are papers out there and you can judge for yourself if it's faked, or if it's real. I've read enough (and continue to keep up with the field), and to this Physicist, cold fusion is as real as any muon fusion. You have electron screening in metals unlike a plasma environment that has significant impact on fusion rates. You have fuel atoms (H and D) with very extended wave forms in the metals. You have fuel atoms (H and D) forming extended band functions through the periodic barrier of the lattice. There are tunneling mechanism and N-body functions that just don't show up in plasma fusion. It's just a shame people don't understand physics well and instead resort to attacks on field in a forum like slashdot. Shame on you. Julian Schwinger spits on you.
Bollocks. The break-even point was passed this year. Sure it's not reached a point of economy-of-scale, but it was a critical change in the fusion story.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.2534140
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Frank Znidarsic Has written some interesting papers related to the subject. I find it odd he wasn't mentioned in all of this. Even before the term "Cold Fusion" was coined, I remember The "Patterson Power Cell" was a hot topic in its day.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/913/Frank,%20Znidarsic%20%28new%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson_Power_Cell
What's that all about then? Are you telling me that their IS no ColdFusion? That Adobe is the name of a garden gnome? That CFML is just a crazy rant?
Unfortunately since about 1989 or 1990, the US Patent Office has refused to consider anything dealing with cold fusion, probably because the high energy physics mafia convinced them it was akin to perpetual motion.
Rather surprising, considering some of the things the USPTO has issued patents for.
-- Alastair
I think a better summery is "blogger creates click-bait post by sowing acute ancetodes about mechanical turk, etc. and a few technical looking graphs together to form a article that appears interesting, but really is just a bunch of waffle."
Pretty much this. Especially considering that OP contradicts the best scientific information we so far have about it.
True, the researchers didn't use an immersion calorimeter, but they gave excellent reasons for not (so far) having done so. Further, someone right here on Slashdot was good enough to look them up, and it turns out they are about as reputable as it gets.
OP also fails to acknowledge that the same basic technology (i.e., LENR using nickel as the primary fuel) has been under active study by both NASA and the U.S. Navy for many years. Suggesting that it's probably not as "crackpot" as it sounds.
There are actually some pretty good physical theories about how this could work. No violations of thermodynamics needed.
When I read this, I remember "the humors" and imagine someone ranting about the lack validity of a competing theory because they can't account of the lack of black bile in the solution.
Cold fusion is magic. It doesn't work and has been debunked over and over again. I suspect that some cold fusion researchers are great salesmen that sell the dream of an eventual big payday and historical fame to investors. Instead of cold fusion nonsense, nuclear engineers should be working on improving existing small fission reactors, like Toshiba's 4S. That's something mankind can use. Not never ending "ten years from now" promises of cold fusion.
We can unequivocally, repeatedly, and successfully demonstrate evolution in software as well. It's a done deal. Period. No doubt whatsoever that evolution is a real process, and works just as advertised.
Anyone who denies the process works is either mired in denial or ignorance, no exceptions whatsoever.
As for how it applies to reproduction and the changes that occur from generation to generation ("Evolution"), once you actually know how evolution the process works, it is a lot harder to explain why it would not apply to such biological/temporal sequencing, than it is to explain how it does.
Add that to the fact that we have no other competing theory with anywhere near the repeated validation of the process for how things managed to get as they are, and it's clear that it is definitely time to apply a reasonable level of confidence to Evolution, cap E.
The (very) sad thing is how deeply a lack of basic scientific understanding pervades the citizens. Not so they could do science, just so they could learn science is a tool that actually works to directly advance our understanding of the reality around us, unlike superstition and myth, which only serve to obfuscate and delay understanding.
Our K-12 schools are terrible.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
A patent will just be violated, and completely ignored. Keeping it secret is the way to go, similar to Heinlein's Shipstones. Place a tamper-resistant box at the client's location, set a meter to charge by the watt-hour, and be done with it. Someone tries breaking into the box, it completely obliterates anything inside showing how it works, or just does a big kaboom, Outer Limits, "Final Exam" style.
Ah, yes. One of Heinlein's most unrealistic, least believable premises ever, and that's saying a lot.
Meanwhile, in the real world, your invention will be reverse-engineered in a matter of months if not sooner.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I think that about sums out up: it's highly unlikely, but possible in principle. But until people can reproduce these experiments independently, they should be considered false.
Of course, the same can be said for many of the "science" being pushed right now as the basis of the administration's policies.
People have been wrong about things in the past, so clearly they are wrong about this thing!
"People in the past were wrong about what is possible, so clearly the naysayers are wrong about my thing!" See how stupid that logic looks? Trying to argue that cold fusion must be possible because people have been wrong about things in the past is arguing crosseyed badger spit. It is a nonsensical argument used by con men to deflect from their BS.
Here's the thing: With all these technologies that actually exist (#4 doesn't) you see two important things:
1) They are actually available to look at, in a non-controlled environment. You can verify them yourself, without some "researchers" standing over your shoulder, telling you what you can and can't see, what you can and can't touch. They are easy to verify they are real.
2) You can have the theoretical basis for how they operate explained to you, and that is consistent with our understanding of physics, chemistry, and so on. There's no hand waving, there's just science.
So when cold fusion hits that point, call me. When someone can say "Here is how this device works on an atomic/quantum level and why it is actually a fusion process," and when these claims are examined and confirmed by reputable labs at universities, where the researchers are given a device and allowed to do what they please with it, then I'm interested. Until then, STFU.
probably because the high energy physics mafia convinced them it was akin to perpetual motion.
Ah yes, the notorious high-energy physics mafia. I read about them breaking kneecaps all the time.
What other conspiracies do you believe in? Are you a Truther? Still searching for the truth about JFK? Or the Real Killers? Time to take the tinfoil hat off and move out of your mom's basement.
> A working implementation needs to be patented.
And he tried that. The patent was refused because people said it was physically impossible. So he has to rely on trade secrets.
If the naysayers weren't so adamant about this being impossible, there would be a patent. And a patent is supposed to contain sufficient information to replicate and validate a technology. Everybody with sufficient knowledge and cash could easily proof or disproof the claims.
Who would be harmed by awarding Rossi a patent on what he claimed? If it is a fake, he would own a patent on something that does not work. If anybody falls for that, tough luck, but there are always people who buy bridges from someone.
If Rossi has something real, sticking with the trade secret is a smart move, regardless of the naysayers claims.
Based on what? Why not next week or 10,000 years from now? How about we throw darts for the time span? The more I read slashdot, the more I believe you are a bunch of children -- all of you.
> If you can reach the fabled "breakeven point" of nuclear fusion, you'll have opened up an
> entire new source of clean, reliable, safe, renewable and abundant energy
Total BS.
Consider NIF, for instance. They're about 1/3rd of the way to ignition - which is way beyond breakeven. According to them, they're actually at breakeven already, although their definition is bologna.
The fuel capsule costs about $1 million. The value of the energy it releases is about 5 cents. Over the 40 years they've been actively working on ICF, the energy levels continue to climb, while the economics continue to decline.
Breakeven is like getting a lead balloon to fly - doing it is cool, but it doesn't mean you'll be catching the 6PM Led Zeppelin to London.
Lack of government investment made it impossible to get a reactor built. The current project is 7 countries each pay a percentage into the program to cooperate to build one fusion reactor.
They have found which materials burn best at lower temperatures. They have estimated the reactor pumps out 10 times more energy than is put in. The base design is to use super conducting tokamak's cooled with liquid nitrogen, which require less energy to sustain the magnetic forces for containment than non super conducting tokamak's. They use microwaves and radio beams to heat the reaction.
The design is done it isn't expected the first facility will be built until 2019 because of constant set backs, lack of investment, and people pulling out of the deal. The new facility is not anticipated to be used to generate electricity however as was originally a goal of the project.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER..
obamasweapon.com
So we got cold fusion to reported to happen...but dose not hold up to be true. Sounds like Climate change, always get reports of it is happening, but always finds out to be false when scrutinized. Guess the only difference is that in climate change is pushed so that a few people can get rich off it while cold fusion is pushed in hope in improving human life.
Look at the other scammers, blacklightpower.com, solarhydrogentrends, brillouinenergy.com, doesn't anyone see the massive web of deceit? All these companies are colluding to create the illusion of an alternative energy source. They are drawing our attention away from something, but what is it they dont want us to see by collectively creating a diversion?
Human understanding of physics is shallow and what we tend to see as laws may not be laws at all. It wasn't long ago that engineers insisted that the ability to fly did not exist in bumble bees although they all knew that the laws that they had in place were obviously inadequate as all of them could witness a bumble bee in flight. So if we observe cold fusion producing heat then it is not intelligent to go into denial. If someone can present, with formal proofs, the explanation of why cold fusion is an illusion they certainly have had decades to do so. So just why is it so difficult to offer proof of the mechanism that appears to be cold fusion? The nay sayers do have some obligation to offer up proofs or accept the work of others. Einstein had to put up with several decades of the top people in physics claiming that he was wrong. Maybe bad patterns repeat themselves from time to time.
either way.
Given how little posters here seem to be aware of the history of technological development and science in general though, I'm leaning towards the E-Cat being legitimate.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time a major technological breakthrough in the material sciences left academics and technicians who are wanna be researchers and experimenters befuddled and expressing frustration at their own relative lack of success and impotence.
“Yet I do seriously and on good grounds affirm it possible to make a flying chariot in which a man may sit and give such a motion unto it as shall convey him through the air.”
--John Wilkins, 'A Discourse Concerning a New World and Another Planet,' book 1, 1640
“You would make a ship sail against the winds and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck...I have no time for such nonsense.”
— Napoleon, commenting on Fulton's Steamship
"I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
- Lord Kelvin, (even after George Francis Fitzgerald was making short flights in his glider)
Here's why, most likely, they always will.
Most likely? Well, that's not exactly unequivocal, is it?
"Most likely" sounds like just the right place for astonishing science to (just possibly, probably not, but who knows?) surprise us.
And I say this to point out one simple fact: there have been claims of cold fusion, but none of them have ever stood up under the scrutiny of the above definition of good science.
Disclaimer: I didn't read the article, but this bit jumped out at me.
Crazy claims of a particular phenomenon never stand up under scrutiny - until the first one does. Yes, cold fusion has been a long time coming, and may never, but just because no-one's got it right it yet is not a great reason to say never.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Mostly because of the few but fairly credible-looking reports of electrolysis calorimetry experiments exploding, particularly when using Platinum, Palladium and/or Tungsten electrodes.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTanomalouse.pdf
At the very least it's an interesting enough phenomenon that more teams should be trying to reproduce it. Explosions are fun.
Not impossible, just a matter of knowledge. Electricity came into the vocabulary in the 17th century. In the first half of the 20th century, we came to understand the energy of the sun. 1952 the 1st hydrogen bomb. The work with accelerators and plasma is the next step, and is well on the way.
The hardest thing to master is not the science of the thing, but the morality and the ethics. How about the politics?
Hey, we could have figured it out a long time ago. Remember the tower of Babel.
"Electricity would remain little more than an intellectual curiosity for millennia until 1600, when the English scientist William Gilbert made a careful study of electricity and magnetism, distinguishing the lodestone effect from static electricity produced by rubbing amber. He coined the New Latin word electricus ("of amber" or "like amber", from , elektron, the Greek word for "amber") to refer to the property of attracting small objects after being rubbed. This association gave rise to the English words "electric" and "electricity", which made their first appearance in print in Thomas Browne's Pseudodoxia Epidemica of 1646." Wiki
The physics for this method is sound, only problem is creating muons takes a lot of energy... Or was a problem. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v503/n7474/full/nature12664.html
This guys parrot the myth of Pomp.... it is cclear in reading his test that he simply know it is impossible by theory and just try to build a gigantic conspiracy theory and rationalization around hys myth... he assume Levi cannot be simply a scientist who see it works, that othere testers are fair, that wires were checked, that LENr is replicated, published in peer reviewed journals... it is at the level of 9/11 skepticism... it is cargo cult skepticism... he try to look skeptic but it is a believer in old theory. he is not even aware of Ed Storms 100% mainstream theory... it is not confirmed, but saying LENR breaks theory is an error. anyway I don't care, next week end I will be with serious guys at LENR-Cities project kickoff... too bad the big guys, bigger than Elforsk and Cherokee, are not yet invited, and there will be only startup, investors, and scientists... not yet the industrialists. the worst is that they conspiracy theory don't even address a real problem, raised by McKubre (a believer ah ah) which is annoyed by the calibration at only 450C (for fear to break the resistor by huge current below nominal temperature, can look strange but this resistor is said to be a doped conductor... probably to avoid runaway at 1400C)... anyway the test when power moved from 800W to 900W and temperature swinged from 1250C to 1400C, shows that the COP is not 1 and that LENr is real without any doubt... question is only about precision. too bad.
It is the Sun.
All we need to do is to create enough solar cells and enough batteries so as that we can always have power.
If the Sun is producing 4000000000000000000000000000 watts per second, we are, as humanity, simply fools, in that we have the absolutely best power source right above our heads and we are not using it.
a couple things to ponder..
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/...
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/...
http://rwgresearch.com/open-pr...
http://www.waterpoweredcar.com...
next fascist UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL WARMING prick that wants to say it can't be done will LOSE THEIR FUCKING TEETH!!!
same motherfucking pieces of shit who want my guns, gold, silver, and lead
I'll give ya the LEAD FOR FREE!
Forget all that stuff and just build a captive black hole. Throw anything you like in it and siphon off the Hawking Radiation. The guys at CERN will have that figured out within 20 years along with a lot of other things.
Don't Worry. Keep Shopping.
a patent is expensive and a real pain in the ass to get for a small manufacturer. It's only worthwhile if you plan on suing someone in which case the lawyers make all the money anyway.
Shortly after the report became public, a number of reviewers independently discovered a serious error in the energy budget model. The experimenters assumed the heat could all be accounted for by an isothermal black body radiation model. But that model requires that the alumina case be 100% opaque. Unfortunately (as can be seen in this photograph), the 3mm thick case is translucent, thus invalidating the black body radiation model.Ã
Here are the gory details:
In the iconic photo of the device under test, one can see the apparatus with the red-hot glowing wires visible through the translucent 3mm thick alumina casing.
This is a significant observation, because itÃ(TM)s the principle source of evidence that the thin alumina shell is translucent and not 100% opaque.
Why does that matter? It matters because the IR camera equipment that is used to reckon the heat coming out of the device assumes that the alumina shell is an isothermal black body radiator operating at the emissivity of alumina at that temperature. But that conveniently simple energy budget model breaks down if the alumina casing is not 100% opaque. As can be seen in the photograph, some of the photons from the interior apparatus are being transmitted through the translucent shell, rather than being absorbed by it. When those directly transmitted photons impinge upon the IR camera, which is calibrated for the emissivity of alumina, the calculation model incorrectly assumes the alumina shell itself is glowing red hot in accordance with a black body radiation model. This results in a sizable systematic error in reckoning the heat being produced by the device.
Imagine looking at an ordinary household light fixture with a typical translucent shade around the bulb. The filament inside the bulb is at an incandescent temperature, but it also has a very small surface area. When you look at the light fixture with the translucent shade in place, you see those same photons, but now they appear to come from the large surface of the translucent shade. If you imagine the shade to be the originating source of those photons, in accordance with a black body radiation model, you (incorrectly) deduce that the shade itself is glowing at that same incandescent temperature. Since the shade has orders of magnitude more surface area than the filament inside the light bulb, you end up concluding (incorrectly) that an enormous amount of heat is being produced.
In short, the experimenters have to reckon the translucency of the 3mm alumina shell that encases the apparatus, and adopt a corresponding energy budget model. Since thatÃ(TM)s not practical, they need to encase the entire apparatus in a fully opaque isothermal shell, so as to be able to properly apply their isothermal black body radiation measurement technique to the system.