Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Cold Fusion
      #5582325 - 12/21/12 11:31 AM

I am under the impression that two of the recent attempts to create cold fusion are called the e-cat of Andrea Rossi (ECat) and an attempt by Pons and Fleischman (PF).

For the sake of my questions which follow, let us assume that the ECat and PF were both successful cold fusion experiments. Operating under that assumption I have three questions:

For ECat:

1. Does this method require human intervention or can/does it happen "naturally"?

2. If naturally, at what point in the history of the universe, as we currently believe it to have unfolded, was the physics and chemistry "right" for this method to have occurred?

3a. If the answer is that this method could and did occur prior to the formation of stars, why does it then make sense that fusion production would have evolved toward the form of stars; i.e. huge volumes of fusionable material which made fusion by a process of crushing pressures, since fusion was already accomplished by a simpler/different method?

3b. If the answer is something like later-than-the-formation-of-stars in the universe, to what degree does this method, in order to be effective, depend on heavier elements generated by stellar processes?


For PF:

1. Does this method require human intervention or can/does it happen "naturally"?

2. If naturally, at what point in the history of the universe, as we currently believe it to have unfolded, was the physics and chemistry "right" for this method to have occurred?

3a. If the answer is that this method could and did occur prior to the formation of stars, why does it then make sense that fusion production would have evolved toward the form of stars; i.e. huge volumes of fusionable material which made fusion by a process of crushing pressures, since fusion was already accomplished by a simpler/different method?

3b. If the answer is something like later-than-the-formation-of-stars in the universe, to what degree does this method, in order to be effective, depend on heavier elements generated by stellar processes?


Otto

Edited by Otto Piechowski (12/21/12 11:50 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5582380 - 12/21/12 12:09 PM

If ECat and PF were successful cold fusion experiments, Rossi, Pons, Fleischman, and/or their estates, would be very very rich by now.

But the PF experiment has been internationally declared a dud, and Rossi, more than a year after declaring that his device worked, still refuses to let anyone look at it properly and there has been no evidence of a working device.

So let us assume instead what the current evidence offers, that cold fusion is not a reality. If any other evidence comes in, we can change our assumptions.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5582417 - 12/21/12 12:29 PM

If everyone here is agreed that PF is disproven, we can drop that from consideration.

However, because there are always two ways to disprove an assertion (by proof and by internal self contradiction), I ask that we continue to consider the ECat method.

Assuming ECat is a successful cold-fusion experiment:


1. Does this method require human intervention or can/does it happen "naturally"?

2. If naturally, at what point in the history of the universe, as we currently believe it to have unfolded, was the physics and chemistry "right" for this method to have occurred?

3a. If the answer is that this method could and did occur prior to the formation of stars, why does it then make sense that fusion production would have evolved toward the form of stars; i.e. huge volumes of fusionable material which made fusion by a process of crushing pressures, since fusion was already accomplished by a simpler/different method?

3b. If the answer is something like later-than-the-formation-of-stars in the universe, to what degree does this method, in order to be effective, depend on heavier elements generated by stellar processes?


Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5582474 - 12/21/12 12:56 PM

Quote:

Assuming ECat is a successful cold-fusion experiment:


1. Does this method require human intervention or can/does it happen "naturally"?

2. If naturally, at what point in the history of the universe, as we currently believe it to have unfolded, was the physics and chemistry "right" for this method to have occurred?

3a. If the answer is that this method could and did occur prior to the formation of stars, why does it then make sense that fusion production would have evolved toward the form of stars; i.e. huge volumes of fusionable material which made fusion by a process of crushing pressures, since fusion was already accomplished by a simpler/different method?

3b. If the answer is something like later-than-the-formation-of-stars in the universe, to what degree does this method, in order to be effective, depend on heavier elements generated by stellar processes?




Rossi claims the E-cat works by immobilizing hydrogen in nickel at high pressure, then triggering the reaction with either heat or some radio frequency (depending on which reports you read - he keeps the details a trade secret). You can read what little info there is here (wiki) and here (fan page).

So it is not natural, nor could it have happened in the early universe since there would have been no nickel around until after the first generation stars went supernova to generate heavy elements.

As for whether or not it is real, I hope it is because we could really use an affordable and clean source of energy. But, given that he has refused to allow inspection of the device or allowed the conclusive tests to be run to demonstrate that fusion has occurred, I doubt it. The simplest, most straighforward test to run would be to take samples of the nickel core before and after running the system, and measure the isotopes present by mass spectrometry. If heavier nickel isotopes and light copper isotopes appear and increase in the after sample, then nickel-hydrogen fusion occurred. If they don't, then nickel-hydrogen fusion did not occur. This is not a difficult or expensive test to run, and will answer the question without a shadow of a doubt (as long as he allows monitoring with enough transparency to ensure that no "swapping" of samples takes place).

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5582645 - 12/21/12 03:05 PM

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

My personal opinion is that E-cat claim1 stretches credulity. No explanation of the mechanism? Secret military purchases without disclosure? Does the thing actually work without being plugged into a wall?

As for the FP effect, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR's) is actually gaining a bit of ground. No one really has a good clue as to how packing the latice of, say, palladium atoms results in fusion. Something does happen..sometimes...and it doesn't appear to be chemical. But right now the energy 'light off' is unpredictable and not readily reproducible and certainly does not lend itself to any practical applications at this time.

Combine this with the fact that you have a very financially invested 'hot physics' science group and you see the potential problem.

here is also the obvious problem that the reactions seen do not clearly result in the normally expected and understood fusion by products (neutron generation for one).

I guess if LENR reactions ARE nuclear fusion then we don't fully understand the underlying physics.

Pesse (shrugs) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5583191 - 12/21/12 08:53 PM

Thanks, Jarad.

What other examples do we have in science, of a fundamental aspect of the universe such as stellar fusion, which have been

1. replicated in nature by other methods after the fact

2. replicated by human inventiveness

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5583211 - 12/21/12 09:14 PM

Um, I am not sure what would qualify as a "fundamental aspect of the universe".

But in general, everything that humans have done is replicating something that is possible in nature. Whether or not it is "fundamental" is a bit of a judgement call...

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5583339 - 12/21/12 10:53 PM

Not to mention that everything we do is already "after the fact".

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5583508 - 12/22/12 01:50 AM

Quote:

If ECat and PF were successful cold fusion experiments, Rossi, Pons, Fleishman, and/or their estates, would be very very rich by now.




Ha! More likely, they would have disappeared mysteriously, and a series of unexplained black helicopters would have emptied their laboratories.

(Cynical? Moi?)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5583860 - 12/22/12 10:57 AM

I think your statement about what is or is not fundamental being a judgment call is correct.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5583913 - 12/22/12 11:29 AM

Quote:

Quote:

If ECat and PF were successful cold fusion experiments, Rossi, Pons, Fleishman, and/or their estates, would be very very rich by now.




Ha! More likely, they would have disappeared mysteriously, and a series of unexplained black helicopters would have emptied their laboratories.

(Cynical? Moi?)




No, there's a huge and immediate market out there for cold fusion. The demand is there right now. Those guys would have made Bill Gates and Steve Jobs look like back-alley shysters if cold fusion had worked. Tim Berners-Lee would have been off-line. Henry Ford would have been thrown under the bus. Alexander Graham Bell would have been put on the "Do not call" list. Thomas Edison would have been powerless. Einstein would have been a relative nobody. Even Newton would have missed the gravity of the situation.

Pons and Fleishman and perhaps Rossi would be selling powerplants to those black helicopters for a very pretty penny.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5584093 - 12/22/12 01:23 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

If ECat and PF were successful cold fusion experiments, Rossi, Pons, Fleishman, and/or their estates, would be very very rich by now.




Ha! More likely, they would have disappeared mysteriously, and a series of unexplained black helicopters would have emptied their laboratories.

(Cynical? Moi?)




No, there's a huge and immediate market out there for cold fusion. The demand is there right now. Those guys would have made Bill Gates and Steve Jobs look like back-alley shysters if cold fusion had worked. Tim Berners-Lee would have been off-line. Henry Ford would have been thrown under the bus. Alexander Graham Bell would have been put on the "Do not call" list. Thomas Edison would have been powerless. Einstein would have been a relative nobody. Even Newton would have missed the gravity of the situation.

Pons and Fleishman and perhaps Rossi would be selling powerplants to those black helicopters for a very pretty penny.




Hmmm. Maybe, on some planet where the status quo and the next quarterly profits weren't more important than doing the right thing. But not here, I don't believe.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5584122 - 12/22/12 01:40 PM

The quarterly profits for cold fusion would make oil look like a losing proposition. The race would be to patent and perfect it, not hide it.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5584153 - 12/22/12 01:59 PM

Well, I hope you're right and I'm wrong. Oil is certainly a losing proposition in the long run. If there are some forward-thinking people involved, maybe there's a chance.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5584325 - 12/22/12 04:19 PM

I am pretty confident that if someone figures out a way to make cold fusion work, it will get used.

I am lot less confident that it is possible at all. Still hope so, but not confident.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
star drop
contra contrail
*****

Reged: 02/02/08

Loc: Snow Plop, WNY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5584615 - 12/22/12 07:56 PM

Quote:

Rossi claims the E-cat works by immobilizing hydrogen in nickel at high pressure, then triggering the reaction with either heat or some radio frequency (depending on which reports you read - he keeps the details a trade secret).



Might there be a hidden radio frequency beam supplying energy to the device?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
seryddwr
Innocent Bystander
*****

Reged: 02/19/10

Loc: La-la land.
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5584626 - 12/22/12 08:03 PM

If it were possible, the real problem would be that the oil companies would buy it and sell products for 10 times what they are worth.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: seryddwr]
      #5585389 - 12/23/12 11:02 AM

The person to read about this is Jed Rothwell, a rare thing in internet science writing, that is, a completely sane and grounded person who is utterly reliable.

Don't want to argue about it but IMO what we have here is a new solid-state physics phenomenon involving nickel hydrides. No one would have believed in semi-conductors in 1900. In the year 2100, it will be hard to remember a world without nickel hydride energy production.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: star drop]
      #5585391 - 12/23/12 11:04 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Rossi claims the E-cat works by immobilizing hydrogen in nickel at high pressure, then triggering the reaction with either heat or some radio frequency (depending on which reports you read - he keeps the details a trade secret).



Might there be a hidden radio frequency beam supplying energy to the device?




No. Simple arguments remove all possibility of an external source. Read Jed Rothwell.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5585539 - 12/23/12 12:45 PM

I took your advice, looked up Jed Rothwell, and found his cold fusion web site/archive. His "introduction" to the site begins with these words, and I quote:

"Cold fusion is a nuclear effect discovered by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in the 1980s. They announced the discovery in March 1989 at the University of Utah."

He does not mention anywhere that after this "discovery" was announced to much fanfare, an international investigation ensued, with the outcome that the "discovery" was rejected. (Let's not hear any conspiracy theories about this, shall we? The rejection was ecumenical.) Rothwell's exclusion of this essential information, while asserting the success (!!??) of the Pons/Fleischmann experiment, does not betoken reliability or objectivity on the subject.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
InterStellarGuy
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 06/25/08

Loc: Overland Park, KS
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5585753 - 12/23/12 02:49 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Rossi claims the E-cat works by immobilizing hydrogen in nickel at high pressure, then triggering the reaction with either heat or some radio frequency (depending on which reports you read - he keeps the details a trade secret).



Might there be a hidden radio frequency beam supplying energy to the device?




No. Simple arguments remove all possibility of an external source. Read Jed Rothwell.

-drl




There is no way to eliminate the external source argument as Rossi will not allow close inspection of the innards of his device, nor will he allow the type of tests needed to definitively state that fusion is occurring.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5585931 - 12/23/12 04:52 PM

Quote:

I took your advice, looked up Jed Rothwell, and found his cold fusion web site/archive. His "introduction" to the site begins with these words, and I quote:

"Cold fusion is a nuclear effect discovered by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in the 1980s. They announced the discovery in March 1989 at the University of Utah."

He does not mention anywhere that after this "discovery" was announced to much fanfare, an international investigation ensued, with the outcome that the "discovery" was rejected. (Let's not hear any conspiracy theories about this, shall we? The rejection was ecumenical.) Rothwell's exclusion of this essential information, while asserting the success (!!??) of the Pons/Fleischmann experiment, does not betoken reliability or objectivity on the subject.




No such thing happened, an "international investigation" did not "ensue". The people who had some reason to believe in the reality of the phenomenon in hydrated palladium continued on with their research with almost no support. Since this is bound to become emotional, with me, the physicist, most likely to become so, I will bow out now. You are free to believe whatever you wish, but I actually understand what is happening.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5585953 - 12/23/12 05:05 PM

Man, are you ever in denial.

See the "Response and Fallout" section.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5586253 - 12/23/12 08:54 PM

Aww, somebody needs a hug!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5586262 - 12/23/12 08:59 PM

Play nice, guys.



Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5586297 - 12/23/12 09:30 PM

drl,

Please don't step out. You know things I want to know.

If you would, explain to me "ordinary" hot fusion; the type that happens in a star or a bomb. Why are such tremendous pressures and heat needed?

Once I understand that, then I will get on to asking you about explaining to me cold fusion.

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5586361 - 12/23/12 10:15 PM

Read Rothwell. Read the book "Excess Heat".

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5586407 - 12/23/12 10:42 PM

The Library of Congress contains no listings for "Jed Rothwell" (it contains twelve--not counting a Japanese translation of one of my books--for me so I know a bit about that sort of thing).

Amazon contains one apparently self-published (since LENR-CANR.org, the publisher, is the web address of a site maintained by Rothwell, which makes this text un-peer-reviewed, in the academic sense) kindle text by Jed Rothwell.

I am more persuaded by the opinions of scientists from Cal Tech on cold fusion. "Pathological science," someone from CERN has apparently called it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5586789 - 12/24/12 08:50 AM

Quote:

If you would, explain to me "ordinary" hot fusion; the type that happens in a star or a bomb. Why are such tremendous pressures and heat needed?





For ordinary fusion, you have hot, ionized gas, which means the nuclei have been stripped of their electrons. So the nuclei are all positively charged (one charge per proton). So they repel each other. They are also very small. In order to fuse, they have to come extremely close together for the nuclear forces to overcome the electrostatic force. It takes tremedous pressure and heat to make that happen.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5586915 - 12/24/12 10:05 AM

Once they overcome that resistance, what is it that creates such tremendous amounts of energy?

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
star drop
contra contrail
*****

Reged: 02/02/08

Loc: Snow Plop, WNY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5586971 - 12/24/12 10:45 AM

Quote:

Once they overcome that resistance, what is it that creates such tremendous amounts of energy?

Otto



A change in the binding energy of the nucleons is the source.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
star drop
contra contrail
*****

Reged: 02/02/08

Loc: Snow Plop, WNY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: star drop]
      #5587059 - 12/24/12 11:37 AM

My guess is that the excess heat in the e-cat comes from a phase transition as the high pressure nickel hydride changes its crystal structure.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: star drop]
      #5587284 - 12/24/12 01:58 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Once they overcome that resistance, what is it that creates such tremendous amounts of energy?

Otto



A change in the binding energy of the nucleons is the source.




The atomic mass of deuterium, a frequently considered fuel for artificial fusion, is 2.014102 u. That of helium, the product of fusing two deuterium atoms, is 4.002602. That leaves 0.025602 u of mass unaccounted for.

As a first order approximation, that's the amount of mass that has been converted into energy. Scale that up to a few trillion atoms and you've got something that can kick.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: star drop]
      #5587860 - 12/24/12 11:00 PM

Quote:

My guess is that the excess heat in the e-cat comes from a phase transition as the high pressure nickel hydride changes its crystal structure.




This is an interesting idea and would amount to a sort of sophisticated new chemistry of lattices. However it does not explain the helium found or the density of energy produced.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: star drop]
      #5587872 - 12/24/12 11:09 PM

Quote:

My guess is that the excess heat in the e-cat comes from a phase transition as the high pressure nickel hydride changes its crystal structure.




It always makes me happy to see someone thinking instead of just arguing from authority. But let's recap..

1) There are known phenomena in which behavior within a lattice is completely different than behavior in empty space - super- and semi-conductivity.

2) The slightest deviations from a perfect lattice have enormous effects on the phenomenon of semi-conductivity. The slightest rise in temperature is enough to disrupt the electron pairing behavior responsible for classical super-conductivity.

3) We have an experiment that sometimes works, sometimes does not, done with metals of unknown purity and lattice regularity

4) The conclusions are obvious. Here is a phenomenon which is difficult to reproduce because the lattice substrate is of varying quality and regularity, or perhaps even irregularity.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5587880 - 12/24/12 11:19 PM

I should add - the lattice interactions responsible for super- and semi-conductivity are essentially quantum mechanical phenomena, and you cannot understand them in a classical sense. It is very likely that the excess heat from hydrated nickel and palladium is another such specifically quantum mechanical process.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5587923 - 12/25/12 12:22 AM

Guys (gals?),

I am really interested in the things of which you are writing. But I cannot understand important parts of what you are writing. Would you mind taking just a few of your best ideas you have written here and explaining them step by step; especially being attentive to defining the vocabulary (words, mathematical symbols, scientific symbols) which you use?

I know I am asking you to move, for a bit, from your dialogue among equals to more of a teaching function.

And I do understand the risks you run in going this instructional route I request. The one risk is that in trying to simplify things, you make yourself vulnerable for others to hammer on you for unintended over-simplifications. The other risk is that sometimes people don't appreciate what a toil it is, and what a gift it is, to take something complex and simply explain it without doing injustice to it.

I would appreciate, for example, you teaching me more about...
- what generates the heat, the immense heat, in "normal" fusion
- what generates the heat/energy in cold fusion

But, in lieu of these, I would also appreciate it if each of you, any of you, some of you, would just take one of your best/favorite ideas and explain it/them to me (and others who are interested).

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
gavinm
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 08/26/05

Loc: Auckland New Zealand
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5587956 - 12/25/12 01:03 AM

When you add a proton and a neutron to make the isotope of Hydrogen called Deuterium, the mass of the new atom (ignore electrons) is less than it should be (a proton and neutron added together) - mass has somehow disappeared, this is called a mass deficit. It hasn't disappeared - it has been converted to energy, called the binding energy. You can think of binding energy as the energy stored in the nucleus or the energy you need to put IN to split apart a nucleus. All nuclei (of all elements) don't add up and have a mass deficit and binding energy of differing amounts.

The upshot is that if you split apart a large nucleus into smaller nuclei (fission) the binding energy you need to put in to split the larger one is less than the binding energy released when the new nuclei form - so energy is released, largely heat due to kinetic energy of the particles.

You can also release this binding energy imbalance by joining two smaller nuclei to produce one larger one (fusion). You get more energy this way.

That was brief and undergraduate


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
star drop
contra contrail
*****

Reged: 02/02/08

Loc: Snow Plop, WNY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5588059 - 12/25/12 03:27 AM

Quote:

Quote:

My guess is that the excess heat in the e-cat comes from a phase transition as the high pressure nickel hydride changes its crystal structure.




It always makes me happy to see someone thinking instead of just arguing from authority. But let's recap..

1) There are known phenomena in which behavior within a lattice is completely different than behavior in empty space - super- and semi-conductivity.

2) The slightest deviations from a perfect lattice have enormous effects on the phenomenon of semi-conductivity. The slightest rise in temperature is enough to disrupt the electron pairing behavior responsible for classical super-conductivity.

3) We have an experiment that sometimes works, sometimes does not, done with metals of unknown purity and lattice regularity

4) The conclusions are obvious. Here is a phenomenon which is difficult to reproduce because the lattice substrate is of varying quality and regularity, or perhaps even irregularity.

-drl



Supposing that somehow a lattice effect is the key. Then might one expect that the use of an transition element with only one stable isotope, rhodium for example, would reduce the number of possible vibrations of the lattice? Carrying this further one might consider using technetium where there is an obvious instability in the arrangement of its nucleons. Perhaps something unexpected could occur.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: star drop]
      #5588580 - 12/25/12 02:41 PM

Thank you Gavin. You gave me the level of explanation I can handle well.

What is this "lattice" thing that is regularly mentionned here? I get the impression that this is constitutive to energy production in cold fusion that binding force is to hot fusion. ?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5588598 - 12/25/12 03:01 PM

Quote:

Quote:

My guess is that the excess heat in the e-cat comes from a phase transition as the high pressure nickel hydride changes its crystal structure.




It always makes me happy to see someone thinking instead of just arguing from authority. But let's recap..

1) There are known phenomena in which behavior within a lattice is completely different than behavior in empty space - super- and semi-conductivity.

2) The slightest deviations from a perfect lattice have enormous effects on the phenomenon of semi-conductivity. The slightest rise in temperature is enough to disrupt the electron pairing behavior responsible for classical super-conductivity.

3) We have an experiment that sometimes works, sometimes does not, done with metals of unknown purity and lattice regularity

4) The conclusions are obvious. Here is a phenomenon which is difficult to reproduce because the lattice substrate is of varying quality and regularity, or perhaps even irregularity.

-drl




I do my thinking in the fields in which I am trained, and in those fields I am published by fully peer reviewed academic journals and university presses, as well as by internationally recognized (and prestigious) book publishers.

But, as I teach my university students, when one is doing research on the Internet, one must assess one's sources, and sources that are self-published and/or published by unknown publishers cannot be taken to be as reliable as sources who have the benefit of peer review and institutional authorization.

Now, let's see what has just happened in this thread. The thread has already morphed, on the basis of speculative assertion by people who have not performed any direct experimentation of their own, into the conclusion that cold fusion exists and simply needs theoretical explanation. But cold fusion is so far from having been proven to exist that its advocates now shy away from the term "cold fusion" and prefer LENR.

Having performed no experiments of my own, I can only go by what the peer-reviewed physicists who are actually working in the field say. If that's "argument from authority," so be it. I do not claim to be the authority.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ira
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 08/22/10

Loc: Mitzpe Ramon, Israel
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5588803 - 12/25/12 07:08 PM

Otto,
I think folks here have left out a key part of the reason why fusion generates so much energy. The conversion of mass to energy is governed by Einstein's famous equation, e=mc**2. So, a very tiny amount of mass loss creates a huge amount of energy. It's the same thing that powers thermonuclear weapons. So, if the mass of a gallon of gasoline were completely converted to energy it would yield more than 2 billion times the energy derived from just burning the gallon of gas.

See here: http://www.1728.org/einstein.htm

/Ira


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Ira]
      #5588869 - 12/25/12 08:33 PM

Thank you Ira. This is the type of thing I like reading; what you wrote.

About two centuries ago, Michael Faraday gave a series of Christmas lectures called The Chemical History of the Candle. It was such a complete and fairly easy to understand and indepth analysis about the candle and its chemistry. It would be cool if someone could start to do that for fusion, and quantum stuff, and relativity, and etc. Not sort-of-close-analogies-and-metaphors, but a way to stay true to the math and science.

How did he figure out, Ira, the amazing amount of energy in mass?

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5589059 - 12/25/12 11:35 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

My guess is that the excess heat in the e-cat comes from a phase transition as the high pressure nickel hydride changes its crystal structure.




It always makes me happy to see someone thinking instead of just arguing from authority. But let's recap..

1) There are known phenomena in which behavior within a lattice is completely different than behavior in empty space - super- and semi-conductivity.

2) The slightest deviations from a perfect lattice have enormous effects on the phenomenon of semi-conductivity. The slightest rise in temperature is enough to disrupt the electron pairing behavior responsible for classical super-conductivity.

3) We have an experiment that sometimes works, sometimes does not, done with metals of unknown purity and lattice regularity

4) The conclusions are obvious. Here is a phenomenon which is difficult to reproduce because the lattice substrate is of varying quality and regularity, or perhaps even irregularity.

-drl




I do my thinking in the fields in which I am trained, and in those fields I am published by fully peer reviewed academic journals and university presses, as well as by internationally recognized (and prestigious) book publishers.

But, as I teach my university students, when one is doing research on the Internet, one must assess one's sources, and sources that are self-published and/or published by unknown publishers cannot be taken to be as reliable as sources who have the benefit of peer review and institutional authorization.

Now, let's see what has just happened in this thread. The thread has already morphed, on the basis of speculative assertion by people who have not performed any direct experimentation of their own, into the conclusion that cold fusion exists and simply needs theoretical explanation. But cold fusion is so far from having been proven to exist that its advocates now shy away from the term "cold fusion" and prefer LENR.

Having performed no experiments of my own, I can only go by what the peer-reviewed physicists who are actually working in the field say. If that's "argument from authority," so be it. I do not claim to be the authority.




I do my thinking for myself, without regard to any context other than reasonableness. I get tired of having to explain over and over again that the shrill comments of "authorities" are not a substitute for physical reasonableness. Particularly in physics, these last decades have been a shameful exercise in hubris and delusion. The savage treatment of a pair of dedicated electrochemists who were acting, not according to the needs of their own research or results, but the pressures of their department chair and university board, and who were forced to announce their research in a circus context, only then to be excoriated by those who neither understood electrochemical methods nor what was actually being claimed, is perhaps the sorriest episode in science since the "Jewish science" slander against relativity.

So I'm sorry if this is a hot button for me.

The phenomenon of excess heat in hydrated nickel and deuterated palladium metal lattices is established beyond any reasonable doubt. That is an experimental fact. Strange to say, there are many things that we don't understand about matter. This is one of them.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5589412 - 12/26/12 10:17 AM

Quote:

The phenomenon of excess heat in hydrated nickel and deuterated palladium metal lattices is established beyond any reasonable doubt. That is an experimental fact. Strange to say, there are many things that we don't understand about matter. This is one of them.

-drl




Agreed. However, no absolute 'proof' that the heat is from fusion exists either. Circumstantial evidence but no proof. And certainly IF fusion is occurring, it is happening in a manner inconsistent with generally accepted theories of physics.

Just because we can't positively identify a UFO as Earth origin does not ipso facto make it from anther planet.

I don't think the science is suppressed by some grand conspiracy, after all look at the billions going into hot fusion research which would put all the oil companies out of business.

Of course, there are bodies of scientists out there willing to protect their body of work that this new science would invalidate (hot fusion?) Scientists have egos....

As soon as someone comes up with a way to reproduce LENR reliably then research will take off like a rocket.

But right now the paradigm in mainstream science is that it isn't worth the effort.

Einstein faced a lot of criticism for his work...right up until his weird theory and weid'r predictions started bearing fruit.

Pesse (The criticism was all relative to his successful predictions) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Pess]
      #5589570 - 12/26/12 11:46 AM

A brief article by a physicist. It identifies the source for most of the claims of successful cold fusion.

Read this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5589586 - 12/26/12 11:57 AM

Quote:

A brief article by a physicist. It identifies the source for most of the claims of successful cold fusion.

Read this.





Exactly right. The proof is in the pudding and all we have,s o far, are verbal promises of a delectable dish.

It is interesting in that it seems every research paper devotes over 50% of its content to explaining just why cold fusion would be such a wonderful gift to mankind...as if that needed to be spelled out.

Pesse (Most sound like sales brochures.) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Skip
Starlifter Driver
*****

Reged: 01/23/08

Loc: Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Pess]
      #5589766 - 12/26/12 01:37 PM

Hmmm... But there may be a key to this article. This statement jumped out at me when he wrote about the P & F experiment -

"And besides, what did chemists know about topics that properly belonged to physicists?"

That sounds like a physicist with a huge ego and put a big kibosh on the article for me.

Of course, I am NOT a scientist and I know nothing other than what I read about "cold fusion" (or "hot fusion" for that matter).


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Skip]
      #5589831 - 12/26/12 02:21 PM

Quote:

Hmmm... But there may be a key to this article. This statement jumped out at me when he wrote about the P & F experiment -

"And besides, what did chemists know about topics that properly belonged to physicists?"

That sounds like a physicist with a huge ego and put a big kibosh on the article for me.

Of course, I am NOT a scientist and I know nothing other than what I read about "cold fusion" (or "hot fusion" for that matter).




It was obviously an attack article.

Attack the pedigree of the chemists, attack the quality of the people showing up at the annual presentation, attack the publication. etc

But the fact is there is very little grant money available for LENR research and going that route is a good way for a young scientist trying to make their 'bones' to get pigeon holed as a crackpot.

Pesse (Now, I am not defending cold fusion, I am just saying that even paranoids have enemies...) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Skip]
      #5589850 - 12/26/12 02:42 PM

With Skip, I too have noticed something which causes me to take what Chet Raymo says with a grain of salt.

But first, to speak in his favor; that a physicist as he is would write about cold fusion, catches my interest. It further caught my interest that he wrote in an easy to understand way. I gave his words an ear.

In addition to his article on cold fusion to which we were referred, Chet Raymo wrote a book, published in 2008, entitled "When God is Gone Everything is Holy." Wikipedia says this book was to espouse his belief in religious naturalism.

The adjective "holy" when used to describe an action, event, thing, or person means that that thing is dedicated to God and God's use. That is the definition I learned in theology. Similarly, the first definition found in the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate dictionary is "set apart to the service of God."

Without a God, there can be nothing holy because there would then be no God to whose service the thing could be dedicated. Therefore, the assertion, "When God is Gone Everything is Holy" is incorrect because if there were no God, nothing could be holy.

If Chet Raymo, acting as a theolgian can be wrong on a basic issue of theology, it is possible, though he is a physicist, he could also be wrong in his assessment of a particular area of physics; i.e. cold fusion.

That he is a physicist certainly requires me to listen to what he says about matters of physics. Whether or not he is specialized enough in the area of cold fusion to speak from authority about cold fusion...that assessment in turn must necessarily rest with the observations of those persons here who also have a background in physics; whom I think includes drl, ejn, Joad....

...you know, this gets back to an earlier request of mine...would those of you who are reading and writing in this thread please be so kind as to state your credentials in the area of physics? I would find that helpful....not definitive, in the sense that then no one else would have a right to be heard...but it would help me weigh the opinion offered.

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5589866 - 12/26/12 03:09 PM

Raymo isn't at all wrong in his "theology." Maybe you haven't heard of "Transcendentalism." Transcendentalism replaced the personal "God" of Christian theology with a universal spirit that pervades everything. This is the basis for a lot of Romantic belief, including Wordsworth's poetry, and, more importantly, the beginning of environmentalism, which sees unspoiled nature as holy.

Please stop imposing your spiritual beliefs on the rest of us.

And let's also stop the ad hominem attacks. Look at what Raymo says. If you can refute his content, that is all that counts.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
shawnhar
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/25/10

Loc: Knoxville, TN
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5589944 - 12/26/12 04:21 PM

Hear! Hear! on the spiritual hocus pocus. I was taught there is a giant teapot orbiting Jupiter, and from a theology standpoint, I'm just as right as anyone else. Saying someone is wrong in "spiritual whatever" is just goofy and has no place in the forum.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: shawnhar]
      #5589962 - 12/26/12 04:40 PM

You are correct in that a theological assertion/belief can never be proven to be factually wrong according to the way science establishes truth.

However, it, as with any assertion, can be proven to be self-contradictory. This is the sense in which I meant the word "wrong". If,the word "holy" in the assertion "When God is gone, everything is holy" is defined as the collegiate version of Merriam-Webster defines the word "holy"; "set apart to the service of God"; then the assertion (When God is gone, everything is holy") is self-contradictory.

It was only in this latter sense that I offered the possibility that Raymo's assertion was wrong.

And I did that, not for the purpose of making a theological statement, but to, by analogy, imply that if he could by wrong, acting as a theologian on a theological assertion, it was then possible he could be wrong as a physicist on the topic of cold fusion.

But, since I know little of physics and math, to sift through and discern the truth of his assertions from physics, I would then be dependent on the informed positions of persons in this forum whose expertise is physics.

I am profoundly impressed by and grateful for those among us who have the knowledge of physics and math necessary to objectively evaluate the pros and cons of issues such as cold fusion. Please, continue to inform me/us!

Otto

Edited by Otto Piechowski (12/26/12 04:43 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rboeAdministrator

*****

Reged: 03/16/02

Loc: Phx, AZ
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: shawnhar]
      #5589984 - 12/26/12 04:57 PM

A lattice is a solid, typcially in crystalline form, where you have layers of atoms stacked upon each other in a regular pattern.

Pictured in condensed form, like marbles neatly packed in a box. But normally folks stretch out the marbles so they are far apart with lines conneting them like your garden lattice hence the term lattice.

In a perfect lattice or crystal, photons and electrons can travel in these layers like a ballistic bullet at great speed. If you add in inpurities (think larger marbles) or if there is a defect in the lattice; the marbles don't line up perfectly then photons and electrons "hit" the marbles. The atom will absorb the photon or electron then emit it or release it. It happens very fast but it still takes time slowing things down so if you want to create a very fast computer chip these defects are not good.

Lattice defects are usually caused by imperfect growth of the crysal during manufacturing. Problems also arise (but on purpose) when the workers try to layer different sized atoms over each other; think of it as packing one size marble in your tray then a new layer on top with marbles of a slightly different size.

In the real world this can be done if the other marbles (atoms) are not too different. It creates stress within the lattice, but usually well within the limits of the atoms to handle.

The reason for the mixing of elements depends on what you want to make, band gaps, quantum wells, electron tunneling and such - stuff I'm well unqualified to discuss. But I remember lattices!

The Cold Fusion experiments happened while I was in college (physics engineering) and were looked upon with great hope and scepticism at the time. In short order they were pretty much debunked; mainly because no one could reproduce the results. If memory serves; the original "extra energy" was found in the method used to measure the energy of the experiment and not real energy created by the experiment.

This is not to say we could not discover some mechanism in lattice structures that could create excess energy in a cold fusion way; but I don't hold out any hope in it. But I'm far from any sort of authority on the matter either. I think we have a better chance with hot fusion where we seem to be perpetually twenty years from producing a useful reactor.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5589997 - 12/26/12 05:05 PM

It is possible for anyone to be wrong on anything. But argument by analogy of this kind is a fallacy. By the same token, we'd have to reject Linus Pauling's profound contributions to science because his opinions on vitamin C are not accepted by medical experts. One could go on. Even Newton wasn't right about everything. Yours is not an argument by analogy anyway; it is an ad hominem argument. You've used it before against Peter Singer. Ad hominem arguments are not effective arguments.

This is one reason why I maintain my anonymity here: I do not want to subject myself to a prying inquisition.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Dave Mitsky
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/08/02

Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5590029 - 12/26/12 05:28 PM

Quote:


Please stop imposing your spiritual beliefs on the rest of us.

And let's also stop the ad hominem attacks. Look at what Raymo says. If you can refute his content, that is all that counts.




I'll second that.

Dave Mitsky


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
barasits
sage


Reged: 06/12/11

Loc: Chicago
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5590162 - 12/26/12 07:21 PM

Quote:

...If,the word "holy" in the assertion "When God is gone, everything is holy" is defined as the collegiate version of Merriam-Webster defines the word "holy"; "set apart to the service of God"; then the assertion (When God is gone, everything is holy") is self-contradictory.




Otto, it would stretch credulity to the limit for me to believe that you're unaware of the other definitions of "holy" in your copy of the dictionary. Straw man and/or begging the question seems to be operating here, so I would say that your premise does not stand.

As an anthropologist, I know what Raymo meant, and unless you're unfamiliar with the religious systems of relatively simple cultures (and I can't imagine that this is the case), I suspect that you know what he meant as well.

Geoff


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: barasits]
      #5590170 - 12/26/12 07:27 PM

OK, folks -- put the theology down, and back away slowly. Keep your logic where I can see it, and nobody gets hurt...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5590392 - 12/26/12 10:09 PM

Upon reflection, you are correct Joad. Though i called it the use of analogy it was really an ad hominem. I appreciate that correction and will be more cautious in the future.

I especially liked the analogy you used of Linus Pauling. I liked it for two reasons, first because your point is correct; just because he was possibly off base about Vitamin C, does not in any way limit his contributions in other areas and in fact, should not be mentionned when commenting about his contributions in other areas.


Now, to return to your original thread, to confute (sp?) drl, you cited an article which you said was written by a physicist (Raymo). The question I asked, deserves a response for those of us, with little knowledge of physics, to assess the value of the article...what is Raymo's background in fusion research? I don't know. I would like to know.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: rboe]
      #5590408 - 12/26/12 10:18 PM

Ron,

That was awesome. you explained it very clearly.

if you or others here could explain to me/us what is meant by things such as "gaps, quantum wells, electron tunneling" I would appreciate that.

I would be very interested to hear what you, drl (and any others here who think there is something valid to cold fusion) have to say about the assertion that "the original "extra energy"...[was] found in the method to measure the energy of the experiment and not real energy created by the experiment."

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: barasits]
      #5590423 - 12/26/12 10:30 PM

Hi Geoff. If you are the Geoff with whom I've spoken before...good to hear (read) you again. If not, glad to make your acquaintance.

You are correct; the word "holy" has many definitions. I, too, would hazard a guess that Raymo was using one of those other meanings.

However, "dedicated to or set apart for God/God's use" is the primary understanding of the word in the Collegiate Merriam Webster, in the education many (perhaps most) theologians receive, and I believe it might be correct to say, in original (historical) derivation.

Words have common (denotative) and secondary connotative meanings. This is true in science/math and in theology. The common meaning of a line is the shortest distance between two points. We all know that this applies to Euclidean space and not to other more esoteric space such as Boolean space or Minkowski's spatial formulations (if I remember my math correctly). The reason we are so attached to the euclidean definition is it works so well in the normal day to day reality in which we live and work; find joy, thrive, fade, die.

Well, the common/primary/original meaning of holy may have some functional superiority other less common/connotative meanings do not have. This point, cannot be asserted as a fact. It can only be proven from discussion, just as the suitability of the euclidean definition of line is suitable to a discussion of whatever scientific matter one is probing.

I would thoroughly enjoy getting into a discussion here about the suitability and value of different definitions of the word "holy". I don't think our friends Dave and jarad will allow it. But it would be good I think, and fun for me; fun because this seems to be a forum where no quarter is given in the matter of philosophical and theological speech.

As to Raymo's assertion, "When God is gone, everything is holy", I would really enjoy a discussion of what meanings the word "holy" could have in that statement, how practical those definitions are, and finally, how consistent the reasoning is based on the use of those definitions taken singly.


But......

we can't do that here (yet??)....so let us get back to a discussion of a far, far simpler matter...an assessment of cold fusion.

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rboeAdministrator

*****

Reged: 03/16/02

Loc: Phx, AZ
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5590519 - 12/26/12 11:31 PM

The nucleus of an atom is surrounded by a cloud of electrons (if you can call one electron in a hydrogen atom a cloud) that form discreet layers at unique energy levels. Blend atoms of different elements together the outer shells that do all the conducting form energy bands and where they meet things are not equal. Workers choose different elements not only for their ability to supply loose electrons for current, ease of fitting into the lattice structure but also the height of the energy well; the area where the two energy bands meet. One will be higher than the other, so electrons from the lower energy atom will be pushed liked sheep against a fence up against the higher band gap of the other element - usually the doped element (My classes were in solid state devices so silicone was the base element, sometimes galium, and it was doped with something else) until enough energy (voltage) was applied to push the electrons over this hump.

Sometimes this well is on both sides and electron has to tunnel through the forbidden zone (were theory says the electron can not be found) to get to the other side; this happens millions of times a second in some molecules where you have electrons being shared by several atoms e.g. oxygen and hydrogen in a water molecule.

Now I've forgotten more that I know and if I venture any further, especially without a chalk board, I'll make a holy mess of things. Besides, quantum physics becomes very important but the gist of things - it's how your computer works. Once you get a basic understanding of the physics and what it takes to make the extremely small structures on the chips inside everything you use you'll scratch your head and wonder how it ever works; and for the most part, stays working.

In essence; if you take two dissimilar substances and bond them together there will be a band gap (energy gap) between the two conducting shells of the elements. Electricity can easily flow from the high side to the lower side (like falling off a cliff) but going the other way, well there is this cliff the electrons have to push up. It's a diode.

There is always a voltage drop across a diode. Since you end up with a "diode" where ever two dissimilar elements are bonded, workers can have some fits because you have one where the gold wires are bonded to the silicone substrate of your chip, across layers in the chip (usually on purpose), where the gold wires are bonded to the leads coming out of the chip and where the legs of the chip interface with the socket on the board and so on. It's bloody holy mess!

Some parts are simple. Some are not. sigh....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
star drop
contra contrail
*****

Reged: 02/02/08

Loc: Snow Plop, WNY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5590588 - 12/27/12 12:27 AM

Otto, here is a technical article on transition metal / hydrogen systems. It is a safe 382KB PDF downloadable document.
Hydrides

Credentials? I have been an amateur enthusiast of the periodic table of the elements for forty five years sort of following in the footsteps of Mendeleev.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: star drop]
      #5590654 - 12/27/12 01:44 AM

I've always liked the Periodic Table, too. I'm told my coffee has its own place on it.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5590830 - 12/27/12 08:31 AM

There are some well-respected mainstream scientists who think there is something to LENR. The Widom-Larson theory is explained here: NASA link on LENR
The basic idea is that hydrogen gas gets trapped in a metal lattice. The immobilized atoms get ionized by local strong voltage gradients, and the electron and proton then combine to create a free neutron. Because the free neutron was created from an immoblized source, it is sitting nearly still and therefore has a large uncertainty in it's location (quantum uncertainty principle), which allows it to fuse with the heavy nuclei of the metal lattice (the large uncertainty allows it to sort of quantum overlap with the nuclei, similar to quantum tunneling by electrons). This produces a heavier isotope of nickel. A series of such events eventually leads to conversion to copper, and release of significant energy.

Jarad

Edited by Jarad (12/27/12 08:39 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
shawnhar
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/25/10

Loc: Knoxville, TN
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5590908 - 12/27/12 10:01 AM

How ironic would that be if transmutation made a comeback and changing lead to gold became the key to clean energy.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5590961 - 12/27/12 10:44 AM

Quote:

A brief article by a physicist. It identifies the source for most of the claims of successful cold fusion.

Read this.




This drivel, so typical of the hubris from the physics community (most of whom wouldn't recognize a genuine idea if it bit them), from 12 years ago yet, isn't worth rebutting. Suffice it to say that the experiments and ideas are far more sophisticated than Mr. Raymo.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5590991 - 12/27/12 11:09 AM

Ron, Ted, Rick, Jarad, drl....et al...the material you are teaching me is well written and easy to understand. Sure, there are pieces I can get my mind around (i.e. electrons going through where they cannot be) and sure, I can't on my own even hope to verify the assertions y'all made....but, wow, it is clear what you write.

Please.....load more on!

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5591008 - 12/27/12 11:21 AM

Quote:

There are some well-respected mainstream scientists who think there is something to LENR. The Widom-Larson theory is explained here: NASA link on LENR
The basic idea is that hydrogen gas gets trapped in a metal lattice. The immobilized atoms get ionized by local strong voltage gradients, and the electron and proton then combine to create a free neutron. Because the free neutron was created from an immoblized source, it is sitting nearly still and therefore has a large uncertainty in it's location (quantum uncertainty principle), which allows it to fuse with the heavy nuclei of the metal lattice (the large uncertainty allows it to sort of quantum overlap with the nuclei, similar to quantum tunneling by electrons). This produces a heavier isotope of nickel. A series of such events eventually leads to conversion to copper, and release of significant energy.

Jarad




I gather that this idea goes back to somewhere around 1920, Jarad. Since it appears to be a given in this thread that LENR is a spectacular success and that only employed physicists with academic tenure or responsible employment in industry or government have expressed skepticism about it (even Japan threw in the towel, not to mention the University of Utah), why hasn't someone solved the world energy problem by now?

Oh yes, Rossi has. It's a done deal because he and his website say so. People on web forums say so, so it must be true.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BillFerris
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/17/04

Loc: Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5591018 - 12/27/12 11:27 AM

Let's play, What He Wrote, What He Meant

Quote:

Quote:

A brief article by a physicist. It identifies the source for most of the claims of successful cold fusion.

Read this.







What he wrote:
Quote:

This drivel,




What he meant: I can't present an objective rebuttal to the article so, I'll simply dismiss it.

What he wrote:
Quote:

so typical of the hubris from the physics community (most of whom wouldn't recognize a genuine idea if it bit them),




What he meant: The overwhelming majority of scientists who understand this subject don't agree with me so, I'll simply dismiss them.

What he wrote:
Quote:

from 12 years ago yet, isn't worth rebutting.




What he meant: Just in case people catch on to the fact that I have no rational rebuttal to the article, I'll dismiss it as being old; ignoring the fact that cogent, rational analysis becomes neither less cogent nor less rational with age.

What he wrote:
Quote:

Suffice it to say that the experiments and ideas are far more sophisticated than Mr. Raymo.




What he meant: I can't win an argument with Raymo so, I'll insult him. Hopefully, this will dissuade people from focusing on the rational analysis in his article.

Bill in Flag


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rboeAdministrator

*****

Reged: 03/16/02

Loc: Phx, AZ
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5591040 - 12/27/12 11:39 AM

In the past when truly new and novel ideas have come along the establishment has been rather skeptical (and in many cases warranted, I dare say in MOST cases). But there are a few cases where the new idea carries the day (kind like winning the lottery with similar odds) so everyone that thinks they have a new understanding feel that their idea is the one true truth.

Time will tell. The attacks on the theories have a purpose. Ideas that stand the test endure, those that don't join the dust heap. It matters not what we think of the matter. We can't prove or disprove it here, it can only be done in the lab.

So make some fresh popcorn and see what the labs come up with. Make yourself comfortable; it's going to be a spell.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tonk
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 08/19/04

Loc: Leeds, UK, 54N
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: rboe]
      #5591072 - 12/27/12 11:57 AM

Quote:

Let's play, What He Wrote, What He Meant




Nice analysis

If this thread attains critical mass I suspect I could get a college education in physics out of it. Each question leads to an answer that incites 3 more questions - example of an attempt to start a chain reaction perhaps?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Tonk]
      #5591102 - 12/27/12 12:19 PM

drl did me an invaluable service by confirming what a high school physcis teacher told me, and articulating clearly for me that macrocosmic events are not examples of microcosmic quantum phenomena playing out in the normal world. At best, macrocosmic phenomena can be used as analogies, often limping, to illustrate and illuminate and explain quantum phenomena for physics-math-light minds like my own. And it serves this function as long as, as he told me/us, that I do not make the mistake of thinking that the macrocosmic phenomena is a quantum manifestation.

His comments, and the helpful comments of others since are leading me to the following understanding. I would appreciate you reading this, reflecting on it so that you understand what I am (trying to) say, and then giving me objective feedback. Here goes,

I think what my difficulty is with getting my mind around quantum phenomena is that I accept the material world in which I am in as presented to me by my senses and brain, is the way reality is...e.g. to get from Lexington, KY to Louisville, KY, I must pass by Frankfort, Kentucky; e.g. my hand does not go through the wall it touches because my hand is solid and the wall is solid, etc.

However, electrons according to the math of quantum physics, do get to one place by passing through a space they cannot be, and the hand that touches the wall is 99%+ space empty of material stuff just as is the wall, yet they don't flow through one another. All of these, and many others because of quantum type dynamics.

So, what I am starting to understand is that the quantum construction, architecture of things is also true of my hand, the wall, and getting from one city to another. What I mean to say is that, these phenomena of solidness and distance which I see as normal due to my senses and brain, are in fact the way my senses and brain perceive and present realities so that I can get on with life. They (senses and brain interpretation of sense data) simply were not designed through evolution to be aware of quantum phenomena as they are in truly real things.

Reality at the macrocosmic level is embed and pulses with quantum and relativistic phenomena. My senses and the brain which interprets the sense data are just immune to those quantum and relativistic presentations because evolution has "chosen" that such sensitivity is not important for not breaking my hand against the wall, and for getting to Louisville.

What do you think?

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: rboe]
      #5591106 - 12/27/12 12:20 PM

Quote:

In the past when truly new and novel ideas have come along the establishment has been rather skeptical (and in many cases warranted, I dare say in MOST cases). But there are a few cases where the new idea carries the day (kind like winning the lottery with similar odds) so everyone that thinks they have a new understanding feel that their idea is the one true truth.

Time will tell. The attacks on the theories have a purpose. Ideas that stand the test endure, those that don't join the dust heap. It matters not what we think of the matter. We can't prove or disprove it here, it can only be done in the lab.

So make some fresh popcorn and see what the labs come up with. Make yourself comfortable; it's going to be a spell.




I know this quite well (in fact, if I wanted to play that game I could dream of some future wherein the ideas of my own book on theory became a game changer—but I really don't bother with that dream and simply carry on with what I'm doing now).

But the thing about LENR/cold fusion is that it isn't simply a theory. A number of people have claimed it to be a fact: that they themselves have actually experimentally achieved cold fusion. That isn't theory. But when scientists all over the world seek to replicate their experiments, the experiments don't replicate. (Even scientists from Georgia Tech and Texas A&M who at first claimed to replicate Pons and Fleischman's results later retracted their claims.)

Now we have the e-Cat, for which practical, not theoretical, results have been claimed. But we all know here what has happened when scientists who are perfectly willing to accept that the device works if they could only have a chance to examine it ask permission to conduct objective tests of the device. It has been well over a year since the big claim of e-Cat success in 2011: so, where's the beef?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rboeAdministrator

*****

Reged: 03/16/02

Loc: Phx, AZ
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Joad]
      #5591161 - 12/27/12 12:55 PM

I'll be bold and say it's still a theory until experimental results can be verfied at will by anybody (well, anybody with a proper lab!). Even then, it's still a theory (and I'd even venture to say it was just a hypothesis) until it was fully understood what was really going on.

You can claim just about anything; but until it can be replicated; until it stands the withering attacks of naysayers all you have is a claim. These guys have to prove that what they are measuring is actually coming from their gizmo and not from errors in measurement or something sneaking in from the outside. And that is very tough to do. Some very clever people have been tripped up at that step.

After the initial excitement about cold fusion and its downfall I have ignored it so I am probably more prone to outright dismissing these guys and their claims because of my historical bias which is really unfair but their you go.

Once reputable labs start reproducing the experiment and the results or Honda builds a portable generator based on the theory I'll sit up and pay attention. But that's just me.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: rboe]
      #5591188 - 12/27/12 01:13 PM

What Jarad wrote above, if expressed quantitatively, would qualify as a theory, but I've not seen anyone get to that stage of explanation yet. At best, it's a hypothetical idea, and testable only in a general sense.

It doesn't seem that it would be difficult at this point to make specific hypotheses and do rigorous testing on them. If that's what Rossi's doing, great -- more power to him. But that's not what he's showing to the scientific community.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: BillFerris]
      #5591228 - 12/27/12 01:46 PM

Quote:

Let's play, What He Wrote, What He Meant

Quote:

Quote:

A brief article by a physicist. It identifies the source for most of the claims of successful cold fusion.

Read this.







What he wrote:
Quote:

This drivel,




What he meant: I can't present an objective rebuttal to the article so, I'll simply dismiss it.

What he wrote:
Quote:

so typical of the hubris from the physics community (most of whom wouldn't recognize a genuine idea if it bit them),




What he meant: The overwhelming majority of scientists who understand this subject don't agree with me so, I'll simply dismiss them.

What he wrote:
Quote:

from 12 years ago yet, isn't worth rebutting.




What he meant: Just in case people catch on to the fact that I have no rational rebuttal to the article, I'll dismiss it as being old; ignoring the fact that cogent, rational analysis becomes neither less cogent nor less rational with age.

What he wrote:
Quote:

Suffice it to say that the experiments and ideas are far more sophisticated than Mr. Raymo.




What he meant: I can't win an argument with Raymo so, I'll insult him. Hopefully, this will dissuade people from focusing on the rational analysis in his article.

Bill in Flag




I'm tired of presenting the same links to the same completely open information all the time. It doesn't matter - we live in anti-scientific times despite all the "scientism", which is what I call aping of the forms without the content.

You're a grown-up, go find out for yourself.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: rboe]
      #5591243 - 12/27/12 01:58 PM

Quote:

In the past when truly new and novel ideas have come along the establishment has been rather skeptical (and in many cases warranted, I dare say in MOST cases). But there are a few cases where the new idea carries the day (kind like winning the lottery with similar odds) so everyone that thinks they have a new understanding feel that their idea is the one true truth.

Time will tell. The attacks on the theories have a purpose. Ideas that stand the test endure, those that don't join the dust heap. It matters not what we think of the matter. We can't prove or disprove it here, it can only be done in the lab.

So make some fresh popcorn and see what the labs come up with. Make yourself comfortable; it's going to be a spell.




There are no actual theories to attack, and the Widom-Larsen ideas are not to be regarded as a theory of cold fusion yet. Instead, a zillion experiments need to happen first. Superconductivity did not just spring into the world overnight. An actual theory that was based on an definite new phenomenon was not formed until the 1950s, 70 years after the first experiments in low-temperature conductivity. The same is true of semi-conductivity, which was discovered in the 1920s and lay dormant and ignored for 30 years.

The army of bad physicists one sees on TV and in print have got the lay public completely bamboozled about how science actually works. I doubt that most of those people could even visit a real lab without breaking something.

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5591280 - 12/27/12 02:36 PM

Quote:

Quote:

In the past when truly new and novel ideas have come along the establishment has been rather skeptical (and in many cases warranted, I dare say in MOST cases). But there are a few cases where the new idea carries the day (kind like winning the lottery with similar odds) so everyone that thinks they have a new understanding feel that their idea is the one true truth.

Time will tell. The attacks on the theories have a purpose. Ideas that stand the test endure, those that don't join the dust heap. It matters not what we think of the matter. We can't prove or disprove it here, it can only be done in the lab.

So make some fresh popcorn and see what the labs come up with. Make yourself comfortable; it's going to be a spell.




There are no actual theories to attack, and the Widom-Larsen ideas are not to be regarded as a theory of cold fusion yet. Instead, a zillion experiments need to happen first. Superconductivity did not just spring into the world overnight. An actual theory that was based on an definite new phenomenon was not formed until the 1950s, 70 years after the first experiments in low-temperature conductivity. The same is true of semi-conductivity, which was discovered in the 1920s and lay dormant and ignored for 30 years.

The army of bad physicists one sees on TV and in print have got the lay public completely bamboozled about how science actually works. I doubt that most of those people could even visit a real lab without breaking something.

-drl




We don't need a 'correct' theory about how cold fusion works.

We just need a working model that is reproduceable with consistent, measureable results. How the darn thing works can come later.

The E-Cat is a joke until such time as it can be examined in detail and reproduced from patents. How come it is not patened technology yet? They have customers (supposedly). All one customer has to do is open it up and reverse engineer it and steal the technology.

I use to rpactice as a magician a long time ago. Uri Geller fooled distinguished scientists that he, indeed, possesed 'magical powers' to bend spoons and noted scientists attested to that fact.

It took another magician, Amazing Randi, to show how easily the scientists were fooled.

Pesse (The E-Cat is as real as a perpetual motion machine until they file a patent.) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
simpleisbetter
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 04/18/11

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Pess]
      #5591284 - 12/27/12 02:42 PM

Yeah, the E-Cat to me seems reminiscent of the old Blarney Stone soup fable.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: simpleisbetter]
      #5591305 - 12/27/12 03:01 PM

Let me clarify what I was posting above.

I think that there is some evidence suggesting that something is going on to produce extra heat in some cases.

I think the Widom Larson hypothesis is one possible explanation.

I am encouraged when people at NASA indicate that they will look at this in a systematic way to try to actually understand it. By systematic, I mean designing experiments to vary the conditions and carefully examine the results - not just was there extra heat, but measuring radiation, isotopes, etc., and examining exactly when and where any reactions occur (throughout the metal? at certain intervals? only on the surface?). If it is real, it is probably not trivial, and this will take a careful and systematic approach to figure it out.

I do not think Rossi has done this - black box experiments don't qualify as systematic study, and won't clarify what's going on.

I hope that there is something to this - we could really use it. But I consider it an unproven hypothesis at this point. I think the potential gain is worth putting in some systematic research. I hope NASA or other reputable groups will do that.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rboeAdministrator

*****

Reged: 03/16/02

Loc: Phx, AZ
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5591315 - 12/27/12 03:05 PM

Ah, we're on the same page Jarad.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rboeAdministrator

*****

Reged: 03/16/02

Loc: Phx, AZ
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: rboe]
      #5591324 - 12/27/12 03:08 PM

deSitter, have patience. Looks like we have a good 30 to 70 years to wait before it becomes mainstream if true. Perhaps less if not. Raising your voice in the hopes that people will understand is not unlike raising your voice to someone that does not speak English in the hope that it will help them understand you better.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: rboe]
      #5591753 - 12/27/12 08:18 PM

Play nice, guys.



Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: simpleisbetter]
      #5591801 - 12/27/12 08:47 PM

I want to say to those strident and benighted autocratic "defenders of the faith", which is after all what they are - the faith being in their own infallibility - I want to say with Cromwell, "I beseech you in the bowels of Einstein, think it possible that you may be mistaken".

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5591877 - 12/27/12 10:09 PM

I like that quote. One of my favorite internet people uses it (in its original wording) as the title to her blog.

It works both ways, Danny.

Edited by llanitedave (12/27/12 10:10 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
simpleisbetter
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 04/18/11

Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: deSitter]
      #5592010 - 12/28/12 12:03 AM

You're quite right Danny, I might be wrong, but when it comes to Cold Fusion, I'm not optimistic about it. As far as the E-Cat, it makes that little alarm in the back of my mind go off, the alarm of a swindler in our midst.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
shawnhar
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/25/10

Loc: Knoxville, TN
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: simpleisbetter]
      #5592394 - 12/28/12 10:20 AM

I will say it - the magic box is a JOKE.
Come on! As a non-scientist person that has street smarts, trust me this is a scam.
Let's see.... have the answer to the World's energy problems and would be given the Nobel (which comes with a million bucks) and gain worldwide fame, TV interviews, book deals, but no, gonna keep to myself...right...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: shawnhar]
      #5592507 - 12/28/12 11:25 AM

Quote:

I will say it - the magic box is a JOKE.
Come on! As a non-scientist person that has street smarts, trust me this is a scam.
Let's see.... have the answer to the World's energy problems and would be given the Nobel (which comes with a million bucks) and gain worldwide fame, TV interviews, book deals, but no, gonna keep to myself...right...




Not to mention that without patents someone can 'invent' the thing again and steal all the thunder.

In regard to LENR's I hope it is just perfecting the crystal lattice of the7 Palladium hydride (examination of 'working' cells reveals localized hot spots where fusion supposedly took place). Perhaps the lattice was perfectly formed in these areas and flawed in most others?

Of course, they are also discussing these compounds for use as gas tanks in hydrogen powered vehicles.

Pesse (I can imagine that regular is hydrogen while deuterium is hi-test at the gas pump of the future) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Pess]
      #5592828 - 12/28/12 03:05 PM

Quote:


Not to mention that without patents someone can 'invent' the thing again and steal all the thunder.




Not in most of the world. If the design is published, Rossi as inventor can choose either to patent it or not. If not, nobody else can patent it either, because the design is now "prior art". (Others can sell items based on the design, but they won't have exclusive rights to it).

If he keeps the details proprietary as a trade secret, that's perfectly legal (I understand that Elon Musk is doing that for some of his Merlin engine technical details rather than patenting them), but if he sells the process as nuclear fusion, and turns out that it's not, he's going to have some serious 'splainen to do.

From a business standpoint, he could probably benefit a lot more by publishing and patenting, and allowing the world to verify for itself just what's going on. If the thing actually works, that is.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rboeAdministrator

*****

Reged: 03/16/02

Loc: Phx, AZ
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5592847 - 12/28/12 03:19 PM

A fair amount of companies don't patent because the patent papers explain how it works. Too easy to give away too much information so they avoid that up front.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: rboe]
      #5593046 - 12/28/12 05:58 PM

Quote:

A fair amount of companies don't patent because the patent papers explain how it works. Too easy to give away too much information so they avoid that up front.




My impression is that those tend to be technical details of a larger work, rather than groundbreaking new technologies of their own. Even if patented, those types of details can be vulnerable to patent challenges if they're similar to things that have already been invented. It's usually easier just to keep those secondary components out of the limelight.

But if you're talking about a revolutionary new concept that's going to change the world on its own -- well, that's a little more than the Coca-Cola recipe. It's tough to get away with a mere trade secret for something of that nature.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5593346 - 12/28/12 09:02 PM

The problem with trying to keep something like cold fusion a trade secret is that it is simply too valuable. Someone will buy or steal a unit, cut it open, and copy it. Without any patent protection, they can then duplicate it without paying a royalty. The exact formula of Coke is a secret, but how many knock-offs are out there? Half the soda row is for various "colas" that all taste pretty much like Coke. Advertising works to get people to pay more for "the real thing" when you are talking about cola, but for cold fusion if a company can choose to pay less per kilowatt-hour, they won't care if it comes from an E-Cat or an E-CopyCat.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Jarad]
      #5593462 - 12/28/12 10:33 PM

Which brings us back to the "publish to patent" choice, which means it can't be just a black box. There has to be a theory of operation, a method, an assembly plan, and it has to be something that can be reviewed.

If it's the real deal, others will be able to verify it, if it's not, everyone will know.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
InterStellarGuy
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 06/25/08

Loc: Overland Park, KS
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5593481 - 12/28/12 10:44 PM

What about regulatory concerns? If Rossi really did have cold fusion working (which I'd bet everything I own he hasn't) he would have to divulge his secrets to government and regulatory bodies. As many regulations and safety protocols as there are that surround modern nuclear power, no government is going to allow someone to operate fusion based power plants without access to the implementation details.
New regulations and safety protocols would have to be written, etc. No government woul simply allow Rossi free reign in opening power plants with the only input from him being " trust me, it works".


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: InterStellarGuy]
      #5593796 - 12/29/12 04:48 AM

The purpose of patents is to give an inventor protected rights to his invention for a period of time.

Without them anyone can make the thing.

But no one has mentioned the key piece of evidence that marks this a fraud, not a mistake mind you, but a deliberate fraud.

The claim is that this thing creates fusion and the byproduct is transmutation of a portion of the metal into copper.

A sample of this copper was given to independant scientists who discovered that it had the exact same ratio of isotopes as naturally occuring copper. A flagrant impossibility if the E-Cat transmuted it from another metal.

The copper provided for testing came unequivically from the ground where someone dug it up and NOT from the transmutation of another metal.

This earmarks all the claims as outright fraud.

Pesse (People believe, not because they see truth but because they want to believe) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tonk
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 08/19/04

Loc: Leeds, UK, 54N
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Pess]
      #5594139 - 12/29/12 10:49 AM

Quote:

A sample of this copper was given to independant scientists who discovered that it had the exact same ratio of isotopes as naturally occuring copper. A flagrant impossibility if the E-Cat transmuted it from another metal.





Thanks for bringing this up. This is a clear fingerprint to a fraud. Who did the independent analysis? Are the results fully published?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Unknownastron
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 04/06/05

Loc: CatsEye Observatory,Rural Sout...
Re: Cold Fusion new [Re: Tonk]
      #5614825 - 01/10/13 01:57 AM

As a general rule when someone makes a claim but refuses public demonstration use the Missouri plan: SHOW ME! When someone refuses a public demonstration I do not believe their claim, whether cold fusion, a 100 mile per gallon carburettor or a cure for baldness. I have yet to be proven wrong in this philosophy.
CLear skies and clean glass,
Mike


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)


Extra information
2 registered and 2 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 5190

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics