The authors estimate few eV's. for three metals.
However they mention that the rate limiting step may not be
fusion.. but the diffusion to the active sites
to maintain high hydrogen concentrations.
It's one of those rate compromise situations..
for a multistep process.
Low temps give lower activation energy and more fusion
But high temps give more diffusion.
Eric I see you deleted your post, but I read it before so here goes:
Slow? Maybe it is here, because no one with a science background other than Ahlfors wants to talk about NASA's latest Arvix submital and patent application. Maybe it's not exactly LENR, but close enough, and they had a large support team supporting the authors, and inventors research. Some of whom have been quietly in the LENR background for a long time...since 1989 in Fralicks.
Kind of interesting also this "PineSci Consulting" out of Avon, Ohio, which the sole owner shows to be Vladimir Pines. I assume he is the same "consultant with 40 years theoretical experience" NASA goes out of their way to mention in their request for further funding, although they do not spell it out. PineSci has so far received $748,000 from NASA for his work, so he probably is the same guy.
One thing for sure, NASA is up to their elbows in LENR. Always have been actually. That *is* news, and it is amazing some science reporter has not smelled a story. EMDrive is equally controversial, yet it has been picked up and NASA is in thick of it...so why not LENR? That is not to say NASA has not been publicly linked to LENR before, as they have on several occasions. But this is new, and with the other research supporting their latest observations, it should be all over the news, and net.
With so many involved, I can see how the latest "NASA LENR rumors" started, and then filtered out to those like Alan, OG and someone else I forget who. You just can not keep legitimate research, with such profound implications as this quiet for too long, especially if early results are promising. So anymore rumors to report anyone? This field is not going to break out unless everyone starts talking, and I mean talking!
Shane said "This field is not going to break out"
There are many visitors who wing by this site.. 5 users and 114 guests right now???
Now we have 3 good papers up on this site in support of LENR as a measurable phenomenon.
There has been no valid criticism .... just the squeak of mice and the yaps of bulldogs.
I think the field will break out soon.
Here are the activation energies for deuterium fusion from the Mizuno paper
The voltage levels he needs to inject are doable.. not too high.
Once the MeV's start churning out he can switch off the input.
| Temp K |
Activation Energy? |
| 300 |
~51 eV |
| 400 |
~76 eV |
| 796 |
~150 eV |
Now we have 3 good papers up on this site in support of LENR as a measurable phenomenon.
There has been no valid criticism .... just the squeak of mice and the yaps of bulldogs.
Perhaps we have a different view on this. I have not seen any good papers here supporting LENR as measurable, and think you are misinterpreting. But, I'm happy to take just one of these papers and go over it with a fine tooth comb to understand more. Obviously the paid wall ones will not help those without access. See my comments on the other thread.
Shane said "This field is not going to break out"
There are many visitors who wing by this site.. 5 users and 114 guests right now???
Now we have 3 good papers up on this site in support of LENR as a measurable phenomenon.
But LENR is not real, just make a poll in this forum, which is the main place to talk about the cold fusion hoax, and see who thinks it is real, and who thinks it isn't.
Haven't you read THHuxley's excellent debunkings, Maryyugo's thorough analysis, Shane D. cautious approach of those phenomena who always turn out to be explainable by other things, Paradigmnoia's detailed disproval of all this hokum?
Nothing to see here, move along. Science is done by serious scientifics, who know that theory predates facts :^)
QuoteI can't get Google Groups to give me these two posts but I copied a couple of spf posts into this posting here Clearance Items for you to look at if you like that sets the date as pre-April 23, 2002.
Hard to believe that this argument has been ongoing since before 2002 and Mizuno and Rothwell have not performed a definitive experiment to resolve the issue well enough for the entire scientific community to see and agree to. It is also crystal clear from the old text that Shanahan was referring to evaporation over a week and not "overnight" as Rothwell consistently misrepresents it.
QuoteBut LENR is not real, just make a poll in this forum, which is the main place to talk about the cold fusion hoax, and see who thinks it is real, and who thinks it isn't.
What most skeptics will tell you is not that "LENR is not real" but that the case for the phenomenon being real and having significant potential for future power generation has not been well made. Obviously you disagree but THAT is the basis for lack of attention and funding on the part of the science community -- not all the paranoid BS that is usually offered.
Hard to believe that this argument has been ongoing since before 2002 and Mizuno and Rothwell have not performed a definitive experiment to resolve the issue well enough for the entire scientific community to see and agree to.
What argument do you refer to? The argument that 10 L of water will not evaporate overnight? Anyone can do a definitive experiment to prove that, anytime. You can, and I encourage you to do so. Just put a bucket of water in a room and see what happens.
If you are talking about producing massive heat after death with a 100 g cathode, that is problematic. There are good reasons why Mizuno was unable to do that, described in the book. However, Fleischmann and Pons did far better experiments replicating that effect, with much smaller cathodes. They repeated these experiments many times, with 16 cathodes at a time. You do not believe their results. Since you don't believe them, it is clear that even if Mizuno had repeated his experiment with better instruments this time, you would not believe him either.
Nothing will convince you, and no experiment, no matter how good, will ever be good enough for you. Whatever the results are, you demand bigger, longer results. A chemical effect with these cells cannot possibly produce 100 W. Even if one could, it would last only 6 seconds. Yet you say that 3 hours is not "long enough." A result 1,800 times beyond the limits of chemistry are not far enough beyond those limits to satisfy you. They could be 8 million times, or 8 billion times beyond the limits; you would still say that is not good enough.
What most skeptics will tell you is not that "LENR is not real" but that the case for the phenomenon being real and having significant potential for future power generation has not been well made.
How do you know what "most skeptics" say? Have you taken a poll, or read the literature carefully? (I am joking -- you never read the literature.)
I don't know about "most skeptics" but I know what the leading influential skeptics at the Scientific American, the New York Times, the DoE and the American Physical Society say. They say that cold fusion researchers are criminals, frauds and lunatics. They say that the effect was never replicated, and no positive peer-reviewed papers on the subject were ever published. Please do not try to contradict me about this. Since you read nothing and you know nothing, you have no idea what they say. Here are samples of what they say (which you will not read):
I don't know about "most skeptics" but I know what the leading influential skeptics at the Scientific American, the New York Times, the DoE and the American Physical Society say.
You know what they used to say. You reference Gene Mallove, he was killed 10 years ago. The paper you linked to dates from 1991. Got anything more recent? I ask because I think most today would say "What? That stuff is still around?" Most would be up on the field enough to actually respond as MY suggests. But feel free to correct me on that if you can.
You know what they used to say. You reference Gene Mallove, he was killed 10 years ago. The paper you linked to dates from 1991. Got anything more recent?
I do not have many quotes more recent because they have not said much publicly since then. Plus, I don't go out of my way to collect this sort of thing. I may have missed something, but the last thing I have from Sci. Am. is from 2006:
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=872
I ask because I think most today would say "What? That stuff is still around?"
As I said, they have not published much. Or I missed seeing published statements. But I have seen comments made in private to cold fusion researchers by the editors of Sci. Am. and other mass media journalists, and by people at the DoE. Everyone in the field has heard from Robert Park. These people, especially Park, talk as if the claim was made last week. They are FURIOUS! As far as I can tell, they are as convinced as ever that the researchers are criminals, lunatics, frauds etc. They are white hot angry at what they consider the betrayal of science. Also, all of the ones I have heard from have read nothing and they know nothing about the actual claims. They are angry at an imaginary version of cold fusion.
That's what they say, and I have no reason to doubt they mean it. I assume they are sincere. Their actions bear this out. If they don't actually believe this, they are highly unethical people, since they go around trashing the reputations and careers of anyone who so much as talks about cold fusion, or tries to hold a meeting. Perhaps they only do this to protect their budgets? I don't know. People often do nasty things in academic science. Academic science is a filthy, corrupt business; far worse than programming and other professions I have dealt with. Academics are not held accountable for anything, and most results are never checked, so cheating is widespread, according to recent studies. Also according to H.H. Bauer's new book: "Science is Not What You Think." (I haven't finished reading it. I sense he overstates the case somewhat. Maybe not. He knows more than I do about the corruption, and other scientists have told me about similar events.)
The fear amongst 'mainstream' academics of being in any way connected with cold fusion is very real. I can vouch for that.
Alan, I think the fear is to be associated with CLAIMS for cold fusion without properly vetted, multiple and highly persuasive evidence that it's real. That would be a realistic fear. People get tired of investigating and spending time on claims like those of Rossi, Defkalion, Steorn, Miley and BLP. They got tired of trying to properly replicate F&P. It's the reason courts rely on precedents and appeals are difficult. You can't keep retrying the same cases over and over again.
The fear amongst 'mainstream' academics of being in any way connected with cold fusion is very real. I can vouch for that.
Yes, indeed. I pointed to the anger expressed by the leading opponents, in the mass media and the DoE. However, many others are motivated by fear. This is important. I should be more forgiving of them.
This goes back to the beginning of the field. John Bockris and others told me about scientists approaching them in 1989 and 1990 and saying, "don't tell anyone, and please don't use my name, but I saw positive results like yours. [tritium and heat]." Mallove described this in his book, in an incident in 1990:
. . . [F]unding began to dry up [because of attacks by Nature], and it became necessary all too often to discuss scientific work behind closed doors. John Bockris recounts one such episode: "A Ph.D. from a national lab, asked [me] to step into a conference room at a meeting. After shutting the door, he pulled graphs and results from his briefcase and said, 'Don't tell anyone about this. My boss would kill me if he knew I was telling you. I have positive results, you see.' "
I cannot estimate how often that happened, but I know of three specific examples from prominent laboratories (including that incident). I expect there were others. I also know of many positive results that were rejected by journals and never published in proceedings, or anywhere else. The authors may not have been afraid, but they were discouraged and they eventually gave up.
No doubt there are unpublished negative results as well. But the early experiments failed for reasons we now understand, so these are not very significant.
Alan, I think the fear is to be associated with CLAIMS for cold fusion without properly vetted, multiple and highly persuasive evidence that it's real.
No Mary. The fear that I am talking about is that expressed privately to me by some very eminent scientists who confess that they know LENR is real. Nothing to do with claims, or money, just the certain knowledge that if they speak up their careers are suddenly very uncertain.
Alan, I think the fear is to be associated with CLAIMS for cold fusion without properly vetted, multiple and highly persuasive evidence that it's real.
There are hundreds of mainstream peer-reviewed journal papers from places like BARC and China Lake. That's properly vetted from multiple sources. You refuse to look at this literature, but that doesn't make it go away. (See: "object permanence.")
That would be a realistic fear.
No, it is made up by you. It is imaginary.
People get tired of investigating and spending time on claims like those of Rossi, Defkalion, Steorn, Miley and BLP.
Anyone who "gets tired" of this could instead read the actual cold fusion literature. Just a thought.
QuoteNo Mary. The fear that I am talking about is that expressed privately to me by some very eminent scientists who confess that they know LENR is real. Nothing to do with claims, or money, just the certain knowledge that if they speak up their careers are suddenly very uncertain.
So nobody has the guts to risk proving the most important power source ever found? You really expect people to believe this?
So nobody has the guts to risk proving the most important power source ever found? You really expect people to believe this?
I hope you are not calling me a liar Mary. I am not talking hearsay, but reporting facts at first hand, I don't expect you to believe anything that doesn't suit you, but I do expect people in general to do so.
Yes, indeed. I pointed to the anger expressed by the leading opponents, in the mass media and the DoE. However, many others are motivated by fear. This is important. I should be more forgiving of them.
This goes back to the beginning of the field. John Bockris and others told me about scientists approaching them in 1989 and 1990 and saying, "don't tell anyone, and please don't use my name, but I saw positive results like yours
I agree with you 100% Jed. It is all there for the reading on your site, and on the net. Amazing to me how NASA slipped through the cracks though, and quietly pursued CF from the beginning, while somehow avoiding the backlash from the mainstream others experienced?
3 months after FPs, Fralick (NASA) and team replicated them. NASA went on to replicate Mills early light water cells, and Patterson, then later re-replicated Fralick's 1989 results. They were, and still are all over LENR to this day. Yet their reputation remains intact.
Just NASA's latest Arvix paper, and patent filing indicates they have no fear of the CF stigma at all, as they have not only enlisted these outside firms:
but also "PineSci Consulting", for their participation in the research. Glen Carbon NASA has paid them all well for their contributions, and asking for more to keep it going. No push back either from the NASA bureaucracy for the funding...another sign NASA is not shy of CF/LENR.
In addition, JWK is an interesting story in and of itself, as they have been heavily involved in LENR indirectly through:
DR. JAY W. KHIM being the CEO of both JWK and GEC.
and LAWRENCE FORSLEY works for both also as a researcher.
Here is a little more about all that from Ruby's website:
THHuxley "But, I'm happy to take just one of these papers and go over it with a fine tooth comb to understand more.""
Promises Promises..
THHuxley"It is academic, because the IH replication failed. Still, I'd like to debug this. But not sure I have the motivation to spend long amts of time on it given the IH work.
Both Jed and I have put the fleacomb through and..no fleas. The excess energy from the calorimetry tallies with Mizuno's calculations
The Mizuno paper is waiting for your fine tooth comb debug.
are you "happy to take just one" or "not sure I have the motivation". Make up your mind.Put some math to it.
Is Mizuno lying about his calorimetry or not? Check out the raw spreadsheets on this thread. Calculate,
Are you going to be like Shanahan who alleges ad nauseam but won't show his calculations.?
Does the deuterium decrease over 30 days tally with the energy output.?page 26
Evaluate on the evidence given.
Of course its academic "Because the IH replication failed."
You don't know how ridiculous that sounds... because otherwise you would have deleted it long ago.
QuoteI hope you are not calling me a liar Mary. I am not talking hearsay, but reporting facts at first hand, I don't expect you to believe anything that doesn't suit you, but I do expect people in general to do so.
Where am I calling you a liar? I have no doubt that you had those conversations. What I question is the implication. You misunderstood the reply. Maybe the scientists you talked to care more about saving their careers (as THEY perceive it) than saving the world. What I said was that if LENR really worked, there would be someone somewhere (probably plenty of them) with knowledge, money and ability who would have the guts to talk about it, risk their reputation if that is what it would do, and develop it.
QuoteAmazing to me how NASA slipped through the cracks though, and quietly pursued CF from the beginning, while somehow avoiding the backlash from the mainstream others experienced?
For all the good it has done them thus far in terms of tangible achievements.
@Shane
The Guam story seems familiar -- four or five years ago, someone claimed they would have working LENR reactors supplying significant power to Guam by now. At the time I wondered why Guam. And of course nobody is doing that, are they?
BTW, Shane, Ruby Carat is charming but extremely fanciful as per your link:
QuoteThe problem is the Governor of Guam was impeached and the people of Guam would rather have a Rossi Hot Cat than a GeNie filled with fresh U238 from JWK.
I bet they can a very nice Rossi Hot Cat from the stuff IH rejected and sent him packing with.
QuoteIt is the opinion of Cold Fusion Now that GeNie LENR hybrid reactors should be deployed to spent fuel rod sites around the world. Thereby generating electricity at nuclear sites by transmuting nuclear waste.
Seriously? REALLY? How does that work exactly? WTF are "Genie Hybrid reactors" and where does one get one?
