Jed reports that LENR has been verified by a U.S. Government Lab. WOW!

  • This might be off-topic for this thread, but I didn't find any other discussion of Jed's report/posting on Vortex.


    Jed, on Vortex, reported a recently declassified report--by a US Government Lab--apparently confirming LENR/cold fusion. Wow. Thanks, Jed.


    Here is a link:


    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg112034.html


    Jed reports that the following US Govt. lab report recently has been declassified:http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf


    I call your attention to the following conclusion on p.87:


    "The Pd/D co-deposition technique, pioneered by SSC-Pacific, is a robust, reliable and reproducible means of generating LENR in the Pd lattice. Heat effects using Pd/D co-deposition have been reproduced by Miles10 as well as Cravens and Letts.10,56 Bockris et al. reproduced the tritium results.69 Besides SRI, the CR-39 results have been replicated by Dr. Winthrop Williams of the University of Berkeley, Dr. Ludwik Kowalski of Montclair University; Mr. Pierre Carbonnelle, l'Université catholique de Louvain and three groups of undergraduates from UCSD as part of their senior projects. On November 2011, the LENR research at SSC-Pacific was terminated. The official reason given by SSC-Pacific’s PAO, Jim Fallin, to Steve Krivit of New Energy Times for the termination the LENR work at SSC-Pacific is: “In response to your recent query,” Fallin wrote, “while I won’t discuss details of our internal decision-making processes, I will confirm SPAWAR plans no further low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research. There are other organizations within the federal government that are better aligned to continue research regarding nuclear power. We have taken initial steps to determine how a transition of low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research might occur.”


    The implications of this statement are that both SPAWAR HQ and SSC-Pacific say that the phenomenon is real and that it is nuclear in nature.


    Fractions within the LENR community can speculate about Rossi. Meanwhile, a United States Government Lab has released a report concluding that LENR/cold fusion, although not well understood, appears to be very real. For me, this is a big deal.


    Understanding, engineering, and commercializing these experimentally confirmed results will be very fun to observe.


    --penswrite

  • 90% of the report was known before through (in part peer reviewed) papers. The report additionally confirms that SPAWAR LENR research is not dead but switched to another lab of the goverment plus the indications that superconductivity and LENR are linked plus more infos on the hybrid fusion fission reactor.

  • 90% of the report was known before through (in part peer reviewed) papers. The report additionally confirms that SPAWAR LENR research is not dead but switched to another lab of the goverment plus the indications that superconductivity and LENR are linked plus more infos on the hybrid fusion fission reactor.


    Regarding:


    Quote

    the indications that superconductivity and LENR are linked


    Would you be kind enough to link to or excerpt the info from the government that supports this statement. This posit is controversial in the LENR community.

  • The Navy researchers believed that the tracks in their CR-39 detectors were caused by neutrons and neutrons signified LENR activity. Of course, that would mean LENR *was* a radioactive process contradicting prior assertions. Other investigators familiar with CR-39 neutron detection said the tracks could be artifacts. This is out of my field but I remember reading it. Maybe Shanahan or someone else knows the details.

  • The Navy researchers believed that the tracks in their CR-39 detectors were caused by neutrons and neutrons signified LENR activity. Of course, that would mean LENR *was* a radioactive process contradicting prior assertions. Other investigators familiar with CR-39 neutron detection said the tracks could be artifacts. This is out of my field but I remember reading it. Maybe Shanahan or someone else knows the details.



    If you don't know the details of a subject, how can you reject it? Your behavior seems emotional to me.

  • Would you be kind enough to link to or excerpt the info from the government that supports this statement. This posit is controversial in the LENR community.


    from page 2 of linked report: (pdf page 29)


    "Besides LENR, the Pd/H(D) system exhibits superconductivity. Palladium itself does not superconduct. However, it was found that H(D)/Pd does and that the critical temperatures of the deuteride are about 2.5 K higher than those of hydride (at the same atomic ratios).19 This is the ‘inverse’ isotope effect. In these early measurements, the loading of H(D) in the Pd lattice was less than unity, i.e. H(D):Pd < 1. Later Tripodi et al. 20 developed a method of loading and stabilizing 50 µm diameter Pd wires with H(D):Pd loadings greater than one. These samples have exhibited near room temperature superconductivity. Examples of measured superconducting transitions of PdHx samples are shown in Figure 1-2."



    See also: Magnetic and Transport Properties of PdH: Intriguing Superconductive Observations http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/464/46434607.pdf




    I know nothing about Pd-D or electrolytic systems, I don't pretend to know about them, I don't comment about them, and I have said that many times.


    I have no interest in claims for small, low level, low power LENR effects. I know nothing about those, I care little about them, and I don't evaluate them. So what?


    :rolleyes::S

  • . . . just that this illustrates how LENR enthusiasts seem to want it both ways. Non-radioactive but highly energy producing.


    Ah yes, it is plain this is what you are doing, and will be the next shoe to drop after LENR gets past the "yes it works stage." You and others are already preparing to inform everyone and their parent about the dangers that lurk just beneath the LENR surface. I find it funny that you deny it.


    Anywhoo, nobody ever said that LENR reactions produce no radiation. That would be ridiculous. The big difference is that it uses no radioactive fuel and produces no radioactive waste. And the radiation that is produced during the reactions can be contained, one way or another. For those configurations that produce neutrons (the minority of cases so far), combine these with a fission plant for a fusion/fission hybrid and you have a clean nuclear fuel cycle from start to finish.

  • Mary said, "LENR enthusiasts seem to want it both ways. Non-radioactive but highly energy producing."


    Well, I, for one, don't suppose that nature/physics cares what any of us wants, or thinks.


    But, a US government lab reporting robust, repeatable, and yes, refutable experimental evidence of LENR adds considerable gravitas to the continued investigation of all LENR phenomena. If this endorsement translates into more resources becoming available to shift LENR from today's feeble early-transistor-like stage into something like what has happened with semiconductors, I am indeed enthusiastic.


    --penswrite

  • But, a US government lab reporting robust, repeatable, and yes, refutable experimental evidence of LENR adds considerable gravitas to the continued investigation of all LENR phenomena.


    Government labs in the US seem to be run a lot like academic labs, in that the conclusions of individuals and small groups cannot be taken to be representative of the larger institution. Although I find the SPAWAR stuff very interesting, I would not call the abovementioned document the reporting of a "US government lab". It's the reporting of Mosier-Boss, et al., scientists employed with US government labs who have spent some of their time looking at LENR. This, in particular, looks like a grant under a special program.

  • Eric, I appreciate that.


    Notwithstanding, after reading the number of pre-release sign-offs at the back of the many months old paper which was only de-classified in the past few days, I expect that this will advance the investigation of LENR, as a fruitful subject. The legitimization for further research and the addition of further gravitas.


    WOW could easily be an understatement.


    --penswrite

  • Maybe Shanahan or someone else knows the details.


    Yup. I have commented on this work twice in the literature. The first was in 'Comments on "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition" Kirk L. Shanahan Thermochimica Acta, 428(1-2), (2005), 207'. The report authors refer to the paper I was commenting on (i.e. their work) but fail to reference my comment on it. Add another to the list of examples where the CFers think ignoring me will solve the problems I bring up. The second time was in the comment on the Marwan and Krivit article that I published which was 'answered' with the strawman argument by the group of 10 CF authors. They do reference that paper in theirs, but only in reference to my CR-39 comments, not in relation to my showing that a CCS was possible in their calorimetry.


    Both comments in this recently released report are to the efect that they proved me wrong. I disagree of course. They didn't. Part of the argument shows up in the 'group of 10' paper. In fact that was the only point made that didn't depend on the fallacious 'CCSH' argument (the strawman they formulated). They clearly didn't bother to understand what I wrote in 2005 or 2010. I mean after all, what can a pathoskeptic add to the discussion right?

  • But, a US government lab reporting robust, repeatable, and yes, refutable experimental evidence of LENR adds considerable gravitas to the continued investigation of all LENR phenomena.


    Why? There's nothing really new in the report. They are claiming a replication true, but that was expected. What they don't do is seriously address any criticisms of their work. That actually argues the other direction...

  • " Taking all the data together, we have compelling evidence that nuclear reactions are stimulated by electro-chemical processes. To date, these observations have been published in 20 peer-reviewed journal papers and one peerreviewed symposium book. Two additional papers have been accepted for publication later this year."


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf


    page 97


    Sure, they might be wrong, but they aren't equivocating!

  • Mary Yugo wrote:
    The Navy researchers believed that the tracks in their CR-39 detectors were caused by neutrons and neutrons signified LENR activity. Of course, that would mean LENR *was* a radioactive process contradicting prior assertions. Other investigators familiar with CR-39 neutron detection said the tracks could be artifacts. This is out of my field but I remember reading it. Maybe Shanahan or someone else knows the details.


    If you don't know the details of a subject, how can you reject it? Your behavior seems emotional to me.


    I have set Mary Yugo to "Hide," so I don't see the posts directly. However, if they are quoted, I see them.


    It has long appeared that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect can produce very low levels of some kinds of radiation. Neutrons have often been reported. In the SPAWAR work, the detected levels of neutrons are very low. CR-39 detection of neutrons in those experiments involved detectors exposed to a possibly active cathode for weeks. My understanding is that the detected levels are not necessarily more than about ten times background.


    Yes, neutrons are an indicator of nuclear reactions. So if the neutron detections are confirmed, this may be an indicator of LENR. SPAWAR itself hypothesizes that the neutrons are product by D-T reactions, hot fusion, being secondary to some other process, the main reaction, which produces helium (basically 1:1 for the reaction rate), tritium at about a million times lower -- and tritium is radioactive -- and neutrons at what is commonlyl stated as a million times lower than that.


    There are also signs of possible alpha or other charged-particle radiation. If there is such, it is at low energies, such that it could not escape the apparatus. As well, there have been persistent reports of low-energy photons, either X-rays or gammas (the only difference is the original, the former being from electronic transitions, the latter from nuclear transitions).


    When people claim that "LENR does not produce radiation," that is a rather sloppy statement that is "more or less" correct. To make it accurate, we must qualify it, and there is much that we still don't know. Indications are that if there is radiation or radioactive byproduct produced by the FP Heat Effect, the levels are very low and are not necessarily hazardous. There may be other forms of LENR that are more dangerous. We do not know what variety lurks in the unknown.


    The SPAWAR work is largely unconfirmed. It cries out for confirmation. Some of it is relatively easy, at least on the face. Pam Boss is available and cooperative. This is only of many opportunities available for those who decide to get their hands dirty with real experimental work. My hope is that all such work is published, not just "positive results." In this field, we need to take special care over the "file drawer effect."

  • Thank you, Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax. You have provided an elegant summary and commentary.


    There has been much discussion, within the community of LENR "enthusiasts"--who have long been convinced of a "Fleischmann-Pons Effect"-- of how this reaction/these reactions might scale-up.


    Who knows? (Until we know more.)


    --Penswrite