This is an interesting citation from another review of this book (see at the end for the source):
"...
Cold fusion -- the suggestion that hydrogen nuclei can be made to fuse together and thereby generate considerable energy at near room temperature, using an electrochemical process instead of the usual very high temperatures -- was a claim that seemed initially very unlikely to be true, though not totally ruled out. After some workers found themselves unable to reproduce the results initially claimed by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989, a high degree of scepticism arose in the scientific community, especially after the publication of an official report declaring the absence of any evidence that fusion had taken place.
It is interesting to look both at Park's account of the history of cold fusion and at that of the protagonists, presented in a video documentary Cold Fusion: fire from water (available from www.infinite-energy.com). Park impresses on the reader the fact that if the process that generates the heat is really fusion then one would expect to see fusion products. He fails to mention here, as the video does, that the small amount of such products anticipated, given the amount of energy generated, was eventually observed, and in just the right quantity. All mention of positive results, such as the experiment where, by what appears to be a sound method, it was found that the energy generated was considerably in excess of anything that could be explained conventionally, is collapsed into a paragraph where Park notes that many claims are soon withdrawn because of errors being found (as also happens in ordinary science).
This device legitimises the dismissal of all positive results, and so also the corollary "cold fusion is no closer to being proven than it was the day when it was announced". This is a seriously misleading statement.
There are scientific arguments against cold fusion, but equally there were arguments against continental drift. The fact that theories have been proposed to provide a mechanism seems not to impress Park as much as the argument made by Douglas Morrison of CERN, that one should be "suspicious" if one cannot get the same result in an experiment every time. Perhaps he would find such a circumstance less suspicious if he were a material scientist rather than a high-energy physicist.
..."
-- Brian D. Josephson, Nobel Laureate, rofessor of physics, University of Cambridge
Dr Eugene Mallove's
review is also very much worth reading, he goes on with some very delicate comments on Robert Park's lack of scientific methods regarding physics (!). Very good read!
See what Nobel Laureate and professor of Physics Brian D. Josephson has to say of Robert Park.
In Washinton Post, Charles Platt comments like so.
For a good commentary on Park vs Cold Fusion, go to the source.
"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought
advice
from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me
physics
as a highly developed, almost fully matured science... Possibly in one
or
another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to
be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly
secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of
perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries."
-- from a 1924 lecture by Max Planck (Sci. Am, Feb 1996 p.10)
Finally, I found a reference to vacuum tests. It's at Gravitec's corporate page: "The initial vacuum test showed as suspected that field propulsion did not require any exhaust gasses to operate. These tests, while good, are not enough to bring to the scientific community, because something this extraordinary in nature needs extraordinary proof. We currently need to perform a more controlled and metered vacuum experiment to eliminate all doubts that have surrounded the phenomenon in the past."
The Ionic Wind Argument (Purdue paper, Sept 2000)
on
Build Your Own UFO
·
· Score: 1
"Electrokinetic Propulsion: The Ionic Wind Argument
William B. Stein
September 5, 2000
The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibility that Electrokinetic Propulsion is just another manifestation of the Ionic Wind Effect. Three different cases were explored; the first being normal atmospheric operation, in which the surrounding atmosphere was ionized. The second case used atmospheric ions present within a vacuum. The last case used the actual dielectric media as the ions."
Re:UFOs electrogravity antigravity ghosts and gobl
on
Build Your Own UFO
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's not antigravity, the thrust is directional. It works in vacuum (as tested by NASA, sorry no link). The Ion wind has been insulated, and it still works, see both of these pages: Wind tests, and The Ion Wind Tests on Transdimensional's Lifter.
There's an active mailing list at Lifters group for people exploring this. Has complete archives, but you need to get on the list first to be able to access them.
power sourcesRe:Interesting quotes from the patent
on
Build Your Own UFO
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It works on high-voltage electricity alone. To be able to do an autonomous flight (i.e. have the power source on board) you nee a power source with a specific mass of somewhat less than 1kg/kWe (kilowatt electric). Naudin used a pulsed HV power supply to achieve 886W/kg lifted (see Lifter Tests with a PULSED High Voltage). You could maybe fly for a couple of seconds by draining a battery very fast, otherwise this kind of energy is nuclear. NASA has some plans on NEP power plants with a specific mass of less than 1kg/kWe. See:
f. Prospects for Nuclear Electric Propulsion Using Closed Cycle MHD Energy
Conversion, Ron Litchford, NASA MSFC [abstract] [presentation]
g. Ultralight Vapor Fueled Cavity Reactors with MHD for Powering Multi-
Megawatt NEP Systems , Travis Knight et al., New Era Technologies (NeTech),
Inc. [abstract] [presentation .
Apparently these power sources could be built for a couple of billion dollars, this is where the military dark budget of $30bn comes into play (see the New York Times quoted in the story).
NASA tested this in vacuum and it still flies (sorry no link), it's also been tested inside fully enclosing bags and a faraday cage.
Besides, the ion wind can be stopped by enclosing the thing copper wire - and yes it still flies.
Take a look at these two pages, in this order:
Slashdot Mirror
"...
Cold fusion -- the suggestion that hydrogen nuclei can be made to fuse together and thereby generate considerable energy at near room temperature, using an electrochemical process instead of the usual very high temperatures -- was a claim that seemed initially very unlikely to be true, though not totally ruled out. After some workers found themselves unable to reproduce the results initially claimed by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989, a high degree of scepticism arose in the scientific community, especially after the publication of an official report declaring the absence of any evidence that fusion had taken place.
It is interesting to look both at Park's account of the history of cold fusion and at that of the protagonists, presented in a video documentary Cold Fusion: fire from water (available from www.infinite-energy.com). Park impresses on the reader the fact that if the process that generates the heat is really fusion then one would expect to see fusion products. He fails to mention here, as the video does, that the small amount of such products anticipated, given the amount of energy generated, was eventually observed, and in just the right quantity. All mention of positive results, such as the experiment where, by what appears to be a sound method, it was found that the energy generated was considerably in excess of anything that could be explained conventionally, is collapsed into a paragraph where Park notes that many claims are soon withdrawn because of errors being found (as also happens in ordinary science).
This device legitimises the dismissal of all positive results, and so also the corollary "cold fusion is no closer to being proven than it was the day when it was announced". This is a seriously misleading statement.
There are scientific arguments against cold fusion, but equally there were arguments against continental drift. The fact that theories have been proposed to provide a mechanism seems not to impress Park as much as the argument made by Douglas Morrison of CERN, that one should be "suspicious" if one cannot get the same result in an experiment every time. Perhaps he would find such a circumstance less suspicious if he were a material scientist rather than a high-energy physicist.
..."
See what Nobel Laureate and professor of Physics Brian D. Josephson has to say of Robert Park.
In Washinton Post, Charles Platt comments like so.
For a good commentary on Park vs Cold Fusion, go to the source.
"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science... Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries."
Finally, I found a reference to vacuum tests. It's at Gravitec's corporate page: "The initial vacuum test showed as suspected that field propulsion did not require any exhaust gasses to operate. These tests, while good, are not enough to bring to the scientific community, because something this extraordinary in nature needs extraordinary proof. We currently need to perform a more controlled and metered vacuum experiment to eliminate all doubts that have surrounded the phenomenon in the past."
William B. Stein
September 5, 2000
The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibility that Electrokinetic Propulsion is just another manifestation of the Ionic Wind Effect. Three different cases were explored; the first being normal atmospheric operation, in which the surrounding atmosphere was ionized. The second case used atmospheric ions present within a vacuum. The last case used the actual dielectric media as the ions."
The paper can be found here
It's not antigravity, the thrust is directional. It works in vacuum (as tested by NASA, sorry no link). The Ion wind has been insulated, and it still works, see both of these pages: Wind tests, and The Ion Wind Tests on Transdimensional's Lifter.
I should have added written that in the original submission, but...
Yes, they claim it works in vacuum (tested at NASA).
You need to take a look at this page with all the successful replications: The Worldwide Lifters replications.
There's an active mailing list at Lifters group for people exploring this. Has complete archives, but you need to get on the list first to be able to access them.
f. Prospects for Nuclear Electric Propulsion Using Closed Cycle MHD Energy Conversion, Ron Litchford, NASA MSFC [abstract] [presentation]
g. Ultralight Vapor Fueled Cavity Reactors with MHD for Powering Multi- Megawatt NEP Systems , Travis Knight et al., New Era Technologies (NeTech), Inc. [abstract] [presentation .
Apparently these power sources could be built for a couple of billion dollars, this is where the military dark budget of $30bn comes into play (see the New York Times quoted in the story).
Lots of other experiments are at The Lifters Experiments home page
Wind tests by Dufresne
The Ion wind tests by Naudin
Forgot the link to Naudins more effective demo using pulsed power: Demo and calculations
Naudin extrapolates (so this may be rough) that it needs 886We/kg (We is Watts electric).
NASA actually commercialises this technology. See Technology Opportunity