How do you convince a skeptic?

    Quote from hunter

    They were pioneers, but you are comparing modern research structures, labs of Nuclear Science and matter knowledge to those of one century ago. Incomparable.

    I suggest you read some books about the history of science and technology. Do you have any idea how much nuclear science was discovered before 1950, by scientists of the Class of 1920 (or thereabouts)? Do you know who ran Los Alamos during WWII? Do some arithmetic and figure out when those people were born.


    I'll leave it at that.


    Quote from hunter

    Do you think that in 21 century the study of "condensed matter" is a field of which cold fusionist are the only edge or researchers interested?

    I am not sure what that sentence means. Are you asking if there are other cutting edge physics and technology? I don't know much about modern science, but I can see that apart from biology not much is happening. String theory hardly compares to Einstein or Dirac. In technology, a lot is happening in computers and robotics, but nearly all of it is based on old breakthroughs. It is mainly based on von Neumann architecture circa 1945, C. Shannon's information theory 1948, integrated circuits of 1958, and neural networks circa 1943. We finally got neural networks to work, which is good, but I learned about them at Cornell in 1972. These things were old hat by that time. There have not been many fundamental improvements to computing that I did not hear about in the 1970s. Of course a million details were filled in, and progress was made, but it has been mainly incremental progress. Many of today's cutting edge ideas were described by Grace Hopper in detail in the 1950s. Some of her ideas have still not been implemented, and they darn well should be.


    Fiber optics came out of nowhere, unanticipated as far as I know, in 1964. The first person to transmit voice by light instead of electricity was A. G. Bell in 1880, so the idea has been around.


    Of course, planetary science is doing fabulously. It could not exist before 1950. The essential breakthroughs were made by K. Tsiolkovsky in 1903 and Goddard in 1926. That was a long time ago, and it was smack in the golden of science and technology, as I mentioned. There have been no fundamental improvements in access to space. I hope a space elevator is possible. The first serious work on space elevators was done by K. Tsiolkovsky in 1895. The same guy who invented rockets.

    Quote


    Do you have any idea how much nuclear science was discovered before 1950, by scientists of the Class of 1920 (or thereabouts)? Do you know who ran Los Alamos during WWII? Do some arithmetic and figure out when those people were born.


    You ignore completely modern Nuclear Science and tests on matter. Explore IAEA database and you will discover that nuclear studies, huge number of tests and results are well beyond 1950 and continue to nowadays. Thousand of researchers work WW.

    Quote from hunter

    Conspiracy theory of academic is not more applicable after 30 years and in front of so large scientists community and nations, anyway if you still believe in it (academic politics conspiracy or sabotage)

    I do not believe in conspiracy theories. Not at all. A conspiracy is defined as "organized and surreptitious." These people are not organized. They are not competent. They don't actually know anything about cold fusion. They are noisy, not surreptitious. Another definition for conspiracy is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." If academic politics were unlawful, just about every professor would be in jail.


    I am well acquainted with the principal opponents of cold fusion. I have met them and read their books. They are academic hacks. They could not conspire their way out of a paper bag.


    The opposition to cold fusion is academic politics run amuck. It is mainly from professors who fear their funding will be cut, especially plasma fusion researchers, who attacked cold fusion the day it was announced, calling it fraud and lunacy in the Boston newspapers and elsewhere. Their fears are well-grounded; their funding will be cut if cold fusion research is allowed.


    You have to understand that Szpak's dictum applies: scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe. This is about money. It always has been.


    There has never been anything surreptitious about the opposition to cold fusion, or who leads it, or why they are doing it. On the contrary, it couldn't be more wide open. Opponents have billions of dollars in funding, and they darn well intend to keep it. Having all that money means they have influence and power, in Congress and in the mass media. From day one they trashed the research and the reputations of the researchers the Washington Post, the New York Times and Scientific American. They know the editors will not allow the cold fusion researchers to respond. Because money talks. Science is funded mainly by Uncle Sam, in Washington DC, where politics and money rule, and no one gives a fart about science.

    Quote

    They are not competent. They don't actually know anything about cold fusion.


    Are you seriously? After the clamor aroused by F&P announce, all the world explored the cold fusion D+D in Pd hypothesis getting nothing as they claimed.


    Quote

    Science is funded mainly by Uncle Sam, in Washington DC, where politics and money rule, and no one gives a fart about science.


    Your analysis it seems a bit US-centerd, you forgot someone like: China, Russia (before as USSR), India (also these nations and researchers all money-less and slave of Washington DC?) besides Canada, UK, France, Germany, Israel...

    Quote from hunter

    You ignore completely modern Nuclear Science and tests on matter. Explore IAEA database and you will discover that nuclear studies, huge number of tests and results are well beyond 1950 and continue to nowadays.

    How many breakthroughs have there been to rival Heisenberg, Debye, M. Knudsen, Bragg, Dirac, Compton, de Broglie or Born? You will note, those people have their names all over modern physics. The rules and laws and major theories are all in their names. Do you think we have reached the end of history, and there is nothing more to be discovered? Physics are settled now? I doubt that! I have spent a lot of time with physicists. When you ask three of them a question, you get five different answers.


    It appears to me we now have extremely well funded incremental progress mainly confirming and extending things that people discovered in the 1920s. People with names like Debye and Dirac. Research is extremely well funded for a very good reason. Because funding is power and influence. Billions of dollars pouring into gigantic machines such as ITER are a goldmine for contractors and governments. That's why they do it. It has nothing to do with science, energy or progress. If it did, they would pour a few tens of millions into cold fusion instead.


    Even the Hubble Telescope is mainly about money. See the book "The Hubble Wars: Astrophysics Meets Astropolitics in the Two-Billion-Dollar Struggle over the Hubble Space Telescope." No one in Washington wants to fund cold fusion for a few million dollars when they can piss away billions of dollars a year indefinitely on hot fusion. Or the International Space Station. Or star wars space defense (SDI), which has cost $400 billion so far, and will cost $1 trillion. There is zero chance it will work effectively, and counter-measures to defeat it would cost a fraction of 1% of that $1 trillion.


    As I said, no one in Washington DC gives a fart about science. The only thing they care about are lavishly funded research projects in their home districts. These projects, such as hot fusion, run for decades without producing any useful results and without contributing to progress. That's a feature, not a bug. Anyone who comes up with a cheaper, more promising alternative to these big ticket programs -- such as cold fusion -- will have his reputation trashed in the mass media and will be fired. There are many examples outside of cold fusion.

    Quote

    How many breakthroughs have there been to rival Heisenberg, Debye, M. Knudsen, Bragg, Dirac, Compton, de Broglie or Born?


    It is not a race between past and future, Heisenberg, Debye, M. Knudsen, Bragg, Dirac, Compton, de Broglie or Born were theorists and pioneers but (as just normal in our world) the Science and Nuclear Science too is going on.

    Not remain stopped in the past time.


    Just as example starting from 1995:


    1955

    Production of antiprotons by using the Bevatron #, the proton accelerator of the Berkeley Lab at University of California, Berkeley. Alvarez's hydrogen chamber was used as a detector. Considering the 1932 discovery of positron, at this point the components of a complete antihydrogen atom were ready.

    Chamberlain O.

    Segrè E.G. (1959-p)

    Wiegand C.

    Ypsilantis T.


    1955

    Production of the actinide mendelevium (101Md) by bombarding 253Es with cyclotron-accelerated 4He ions (α-particles). Ghiorso et al. obtained 256Md (T1/2 ≈ 77 min). The most stable mendelevium isotope, 258Md, has a half-life of 52 d. This was about the last element discovered with major contribution from chemistry. This was also the last one produced by using a light projectile (α).

    Ghiorso A.

    Harvey B.G.

    Choppin G.R

    Thompson S.G.

    Seaborg G.T.


    1955-1960

    Establishing neutron spectroscopy, a method based on the inelastic scattering of neutrons and used for studying the dynamic properties of condensed phases.

    Brockhouse B.N. (1994-p)


    1956

    Confirmation of the detection of free neutrino (actually electron antineutrino), whose existence had been hypothesized by W.E. Pauli in 1930 to explain the "missing energy" (the continuous energy spectrum) of β-rays. The name "little neutron" was coined by E. Fermi in 1933, one year after Chadwick's discovery of the neutron.

    Reines F. (1995-p)

    Cowan C.L.

    Harrison F.B.

    Kruse H.W.,

    McGuire A.D.


    1956

    Designing a number of experiments that are suitable for checking the violation of parity conservation in general (and β decay/weak interaction in particular). The first successful experiment to test the incompleteness of right-left symmetry in the β decay was reported by C.S. Wu, E. Ambler, R.W. Hayward et al. in 1957. (They proved that left-handed electrons coming from the beta emitter 60Co slightly outnumber the right-handed ones.)

    Lee T.D.

    Yang C.N. (1957-p)


    1957

    Proving that neutrinos have negative helicity, i.e. their spins point backwards as they propagate. This property is also called left-handedness (see above). Antineutrinos are now known to be right-handed.

    Goldhaber M.

    Grodzins L.

    Sunyar A.W.


    1957

    Discovery of the antineutron. Considering the discovery of positron in 1932 and that of the antiproton in 1955, at this point all three subatomic components were "available" to build up a complete periodic table of antielements.

    Cork B.

    Lambertson G.R.

    Piccioni O.

    Wenzel W.A.


    1957

    Theoretically showed that all of the chemical elements from carbon to uranium could be produced by nuclear processes in stars starting with the hydrogen and helium produced in the big bang. Fowler also provided calculations for the solar neutrino investigations started a decade later. In a famous 1957 paper called B2FH (B squared F H) after the initials of its authors, the existence of the p- (proton process @), r- (rapid neutron-capture process @), and s-process (slow neutron-capture process) had been predicted. These processes, together with the rp-process (rapid proton-capture process, related with X-ray bursts @), are of great importance in nucleosynthesis.

    Burbidge G.

    Burbidge M.

    Cameron A.G.W.

    Fowler G.A. (1983-p)

    Hoyle F.


    1957

    Launching the synchrophasotron # of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna. With the proton energy of 10 GeV, it was the most powerful accelerator in the world at that time.

    Veksler V.M.


    1958

    Discovery and explanation of the recoilless resonance emission and absorption of atomic nuclei in solids. The so-called Mössbauer effect serves as a basis for Mössbauer spectroscopy, a method used among others in chemistry. A miniscule spectrometer was even sent to the Mars # to study iron-bearing rock samples on the spot.

    Mössbauer R.L. (1961-p)


    1958

    Production of the actinide nobelium (102No) by bombarding 246Cm (actually 244Cm that was the major component at 95%) with accelerated 12C ions. Ghiorso et al. supposed they obtained 254No with 3 s for half-life. Actually they obtained 252No (T1/2 ≈ 2.3 s), and the half-life of 254No is now known to be 50 s. The most stable isotope of nobelium, 259No, has a half-life of 58 min. This element was the first one of a series produced by hot fusion using heavy ions as projectiles.

    Ghiorso A.

    Seaborg G.T.

    Sikkeland T.

    Walton J.R.


    1958

    Proposing 1/12 of the mass of a 12C atom as a unit in which atomic masses are measured. The unified atomic mass unit (u) was accepted by both IUPAC and IUPAP in 1960.

    Kohman T.P.

    Mattauch J.H.E.

    Wapstra A.H.


    1959

    Radioimmunoassay (RIA) is accepted by the scientific community. The idea is that the concentration of the unknown unlabeled antigen is obtained by comparing its inhibitory effect on the binding of radioactively labeled antigen to specific antibody with the inhibitory effect of known standards. R. is for Rosalyn, another female Nobel Laureate of the few.

    Yalow R. (1977-m)


    1959

    Proposing the nuclear reaction model later named deep inelastic collision (grazing collision) involving heavy ions. The nuclei stick together forming a transitory complex, and then break up again fission-like due to Coulomb repulsion before a real compound nucleus could be formed.

    Kaufmann R.

    Wolfgang R.


    1960

    Discovery of muonium (Mu), an atom-like bound state of a positive muon μ+ and a negatron e-. Muonium, one of the exotic atoms, is quite similar to hydrogen both in size and chemical properties (much more similar than, e.g., positronium). Chemical applications include muon spin resonance (μSR).

    Hughes V.W.

    McColm D.W.

    Prepost R.

    Ziock K.


    1961

    Launching the first navigational satellite (Navy Transit 4A) for which electrical power was provided by a "radionuclide thermoelectric generator". RTGs directly convert the heat generated by the decay of plutonium-238 oxide to electricity.


    1961

    Production of lawrencium (103Lr), heaviest of the actinides, by bombarding 249,250,251,252Cf with 10,11B ions accelerated by the linear accelerator HILAC. (It would have been more appropriate perhaps to use a cyclotron instead invented by E.O. Lawrence, eponym of lawrencium.) Ghiorso et al. obtained 258Lr (T1/2 ≈ 4.1 s). For the most stable isotope, 262Lr, T1/2 ≈ 3.6 h.

    Ghiorso A.

    Larsh A.E.

    Latimer R.M.

    Sikkeland T.


    1962

    Discovery of the muon neutrino νμ whose existence (together with that of the νe) demonstrates that leptons come in pairs (i.e., e with νe, μ with νμ and - as it turned out later - τ with ντ).

    Lederman L.M.

    Schwartz M.

    Steinberger J. (1988-p)


    1962

    Discovery of nuclear shape isomerism. The first elongated shape isomer decaying with SF with very short half-life (14 ms) was 242fAm. The shapes are stabilized by shell effects.

    Polikanov S.M.

    Druin V.A.

    Karnaukhov V.A. et al.


    1963

    Discovery of muonic molecules pμp and pμd. Bleser et al. studied the fusion reaction p + d → 3He + γ catalyzed by muons from the Nevis synchrocyclotron stopped in liquid hydrogen. Neon added to the target trapped the muons forming muonic atoms with them. (In muonic atoms an electron is replaced by a negative muon μ-.)

    Bleser E.J.

    Anderson E.W.

    Lederman L.M.

    Meyer S.L. et al.


    1963-1964

    Creating the quark (q) concept #. According to the original idea three such particles (u, d, and s, i.e. up, down, and strange) were just enough to build up hadrons (i.e. mesons # and baryons #) and explain their properties. (The name quark comes from the book Finnegans Wake by James Joyce #.) This concept was of great use in classifying and predicting particles. One of the predicted particles, the omega minus baryon (Ω−) was supposed to be composed of three s quarks. To satisfy the Pauli principle demanding that the three fermions should be in different states, a new quantum-state descriptor, the color (red, green and blue - RGB) was created. Quark confinement translates to the rule that only colorless/white particles can be observed such as mesons (built from a quark and an antiquark of complementary colors, e.g. R and C) and baryons (built from three quarks of different RGB colors).

    Gell-Mann M. (1969-p)

    Zweig G. et al.


    1964

    Discovery of the strange (s) quark #, a 2nd generation quark at BNL while proving the existence of the omega minus baryon (Ω−) named and theoretically predicted by M. Gell-Mann.

    Palmer R.

    Samios N.

    Shutt R.


    1964

    Prediction of a peculiar particle named the Higgs boson (H0) which is supposed to be the source of the mass of other particles.

    Higgs P.


    1964

    Experimental evidence for the violation of CP symmetry (charge and parity symmetry). It was found that the long-lived neutral K meson (KL) decayed into two charged pions, a decay mode forbidden by CP symmetry. In simple terms, the results mean that matter and antimatter are not completely symmetric (as regards weak interaction), a conclusion very important for cosmology.

    Christenson J.

    Cronin J.W.

    Fitch V.L. (1980-p)

    Turlay R.


    1965

    Discovery of cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, an important proof of Big Bang theory and the evolution of matter. (The Big Bang theory itself had been advocated by the Belgian astronomer G.-H. Lemaître since 1927. He referred to his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation", a proper metaphor for a Roman Catholic priest what he was.)

    Penzias A.A.

    Wilson R.W. (1978-p)


    1967

    First observation of the solar neutrino problem, namely, that the number of neutrinos coming from the Sun is only 1/3 of what was expected. The detector built in the Homestake Gold Mine was based on the reaction ν + 37Cl → e- + 37Ar. It contained 380 m3 of C2Cl4, from which the radioactive 37Ar (T1/2=35 d) was extracted with 36Ar every 2-3 months. Over a period of 25 years, 2200 37Ar atoms had been detected! (Davis Jr. also proved earlier that the neutrino and the antineutrino are different particles.)

    Davis Jr. R. (2002-p)


    1967

    Explaining the asymmetric fission # # of nuclei by introducing shell corrections to the liquid-drop energies during the deformation process that leads to fission.

    Strutinsky V.M.


    1967-1970

    First evidence for the existence of the up (u) quark and the down (d) quark, representing the 1st generation of quarks. The proof was provided by deep inelastic scattering experiments at SLAC. The u quark (charge/e = 2/3) is the one that makes the proton p (uud) a positive particle. The d quark (charge/e = -1/3) makes the neutron n (udd) neutral by counterbalancing the charge of u. Neutral particles, gluons, binding quarks in nucleons @ were also discovered in the same series of experimental/theoretical studies.

    Bjorken J.D.

    Feynman R.P.

    Friedman J.I.

    Kendall H.W.

    Taylor R.E. (1990-p) et al.


    1968

    Reaching the temperature equivalent to 1 keV (11.6 MK) in the Tokamak, a Soviet fusion reactor using magnetic confinement for keeping away plasma from the walls of the reactor chamber.


    1968

    Inventing the multiwire proportional chamber for the detection of the track of high-energy particles.

    Charpak G. (1992-p)


    1969

    Production of rutherfordium (104Rf), the lightest of the transactinides, by bombarding 249Cf with 12C ions. Ghiorso et al. obtained 257Rf (T1/2 ≈ 4.7 s). The most stable rutherfordium isotope produced as of 2006, 263Rf, has a half-life of 10 min.

    Flerov et al. also claimed the credit for the discovery on account of their 1964 experiment in which 242Pu was bombarded with 22Ne ions. (Until 1997, Rf was also known as kurchatovium, Ku.)

    Ghiorso A.

    Nurmia M. et al.

    Flerov G.N.

    Oganessian Yu.Ts. et al.


    1970

    Production of the transactinide dubnium (105Db) by bombarding 249Cf with 15N ions. Ghiorso et al. obtained 260Db (T1/2 ≈ 1.5 s).

    Dubna scientists (Flerov et al.) have also claimed the credit for the discovery on account of their experiment in which 243Am was bombarded with 22Ne ions yielding 261Db (T1/2 ≈ 1.8 s).

    Ghiorso A. et al.

    Flerov G.N. et al.


    1970

    Postulation of the existence of a fourth quark (c for charm). Experimental proof followed 4-6 years later in connection with the discovery and the interpretation of the J/ψ particle.


    Glashow S.

    Iliopoulos J

    Maiani L.


    1970

    First report on proton radioactivity. The observation was made with the nuclear isomer 53mCo. Proton decay @ from a ground-state nuclide (151Lu) was first observed in 1981 by S. Hoffmann et al. (β-delayed proton emission @ was discovered in 1964.)

    Jackson K.P.

    Cardinal C.U.

    Evans H.C. et al.


    1968-1972

    Elucidation of the quantum structure of electroweak interaction. The latter is considered as unification of the electromagnetic interaction propagated by photons (g) and the weak interaction # propagated by W+, W- and Z0 bosons.

    't Hooft G.

    Veltman M.J.G. (1999-p)


    1972

    Discovery of ancient nuclear reactor of natural origin at Oklo, Gabon (Oklo fossil reactor). It had operated for hundreds of millennia some 1.7 Ga ago. The possibility of the existence of natural fission reactors of similar type was predicted by P.K. Kuroda in 1956. In 1993, J.M. Herndon pointed out the possibility of another type of fission reactor that is supposed to be operating in the center of the Earth's core (geo-reactor). Its existence, however, is controversial.

    Bodu R.

    Bouzigues H.

    Morin N.

    Pfiffelmann J.P.


    1973

    Theory explaining asymptotic freedom of quarks, i.e. when they get close together the strong force acting between them vanishes. On the other hand, quarks are confined (e.g. in the nucleons in groups of three), i.e. they cannot be separated from each other because the same strong (color) force gets stronger with distance.

    Gross D.J.

    Politzer H.D.

    Wilczek F.A. (2004-p)


    1973

    Postulation of the existence of a 3rd generation of quarks consisting of the b (bottom) and t (top) quarks.

    Kobayashi M.

    Maskawa T.


    1973

    Creation of an electroweak theory by assuming four boson propagators: the mass-less photon (γ) and three heavy bosons (W+, W-, and Z0). Thus the Standard Model # of particles and interactions got completed as a theory. The hypothesized bosons were found ten years later.

    Glashow S.L.

    Salam A.

    Weinberg S. (1979-p)


    1974

    Producing the transactinide seaborgium (106Sg) by bombarding 249Cf with 18O ions in the Super-Heavy Ion Linear Accelerator. Ghiorso et al. obtained 263Sg (T1/2 ≈ 1 s.). Since transactinides are very short-lived and the atoms are produced rather infrequently one by one, single-atom chemistry is an important issue here. This was the heaviest element produced by hot fusion (during which several neutrons evaporate).

    Ghiorso A.

    Nitshke J.M.

    Alonso C.T.

    Alonso J.R.

    Nurmia M. et al.


    1974

    Simultaneous discovery of the J/ψ particle at SLAC (2.6-8 GeV electon-positron storage ring, SPEAR #) and BNL (high-intensity proton beam from the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron, AGS #). By 1976, J/ψ got interpreted as charmonium (on the analogy of positronium e-e+), consisting of a c quark (charm quark #, predicted in 1970), representing the 2nd generation of quarks, and its antiparticle.

    Richter B.

    Ting S.C.C. (1976-p)


    1974-1977

    Discovery of the tau lepton (also called tauon), τ, representing the 3rd generation of leptons (electron e: 1st generation, muon μ: 2nd generation). Contrary to its "family name" lepton (leptos means delicate) the tauon's mass is mτ ≈ 3477 me, i.e., it is almost as heavy as two 1H (protium) atoms or a 2H (deuterium) atom.

    Pearl M.L. (1995-p) et al.


    1977

    Discovery of the bottom (b) quark #, the fifth quark predicted by M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa. Fermilab scientists actually produced Υ (upsilon) particles which were immediately recognized as a composition of a b/anti-b pair (i.e. bottomonium).

    Lederman L.M. et al.


    1981

    Production of the transactinide bohrium (107Bh) by bombarding 209Bi with 54Cr ions at GSI, Darmstadt. Münzenberg et al. obtained six atoms of 262Bh (T1/2 ≈ 8 ms). The most stable bohrium isotope, 272Bh, has a half-life of 6-20 s. (The discovery of element 107 was first announced by JINR, Dubna, in 1976.) This was the first element produced by cold fusion @ (a term introduced by Oganessian et al. in 1975 for targets like Pb and Bi having closed nucleon shells). It is not to be confused with the controversial "cold fusion" supposedly observed at room temperature in 1989 using electrolysis.

    Münzenberg G.

    Hofmann S.

    Heßberger F.P.

    Reisdorf W.

    Schmidt K-H. et al.


    1982

    Production of the transactinide meitnerium (109Mt) by bombarding 209Bi with 58Fe ions using a high-energy linear accelerator at GSI, Darmstadt. Münzenberg et al. obtained 266Mt (T1/2 ≈ 1.7 ms). The most stable meitnerium isotope, 276Mt, has a half-life of about 0.5-1.5 s.

    Münzenberg G.

    Armbruster P.

    Heßberger F.P.

    Hofmann S.

    Poppensieker K. et al.


    1983

    Experimental observation of the vector bosons W+, W-, and Z0, the propagators of the weak interaction which were predicted by S.L. Glashow, A. Salam and S. Weinberg about a decade earlier. They turned out really massive, in the order of a Sr or a Mo atom, or - to take a more familiar example - two ethanol molecules.

    Rubbia C.

    van der Meer S. (1984-p)


    1984

    Production of the transactinide hassium (108Hs) by bombarding 208Pb with 58Fe ions using a linear accelerator at GSI, Darmstadt, with contribution from Dubna. Münzenberg et al. obtained 265Hs (T1/2 ≈ 2 ms). The discovery was convincingly confirmed by Hofmann et al. in 1989.

    Münzenberg G.

    Armbruster P.

    Folger H.

    Heßberger F.P.

    Hofmann S. et al.


    1984

    Discovery of cluster decay (heavy-ion emission) of heavy nuclides with 223Ra that produces 14C. (Later on spontaneous however very rare emission of still heavier clusters such as 24Ne and 28Mg was also observed.)

    Rose H.J.

    Jones G.A.


    1984

    Observation of β-delayed triton emission (βt, t = 3H+) in 11Li. The latter turned out a little later to be one of the halo nuclei # #. According to P.G. Hansen and B. Jonson (1987), the extremely large nuclear radius of 11Li, e.g., can be explained by the halo effect, i.e. it can be visualized as a binary system consisting of a 9Li core surrounded by a weakly bound pair of neutrons.

    Langevin M.

    Détraz C.

    Epherre M. et al.



    1987

    First observation of double beta decay @ (2β or ββ) with 82Se (T1/2 ≈ 1020 a), when two neutrons simultaneously transform to protons emitting two electrons and two antineutrinos. Its longer abbreviation is ββ2ν or 2νββ to differentiate it from neutrinoless double beta decay (0νββ), a decay mode of considerable theoretical importance that has not been found so far.

    Elliott S.R.

    Hahn A.H.

    Moe M.K.


    1987

    Kamiokande II, a direction-sensitive neutrino detector built for observing solar neutrinos, (and two other ν-detectors) detected a burst of neutrinos (duration: 10 s) from the supernova explosion 1987A #. The neutrinos were registered 3 h before the first optical evidence (exposure of a photographic plate) was collected.

    Koshiba M. et al.


    1992

    Discovery of bound-beta radioactivity βb meaning that stable nuclides like 163Dy become unstable when they get completely stripped of their atomic electrons. The half-life of 163Dy66+ ions is a mere 50 days, whereas neutral dysprosium is stable. In a way βb-decay is a reversed EC, because the electron emitted gets trapped by one of the atomic shells.

    Jung M. et al.


    1994

    Production of the transactinide darmstadtium (110Ds) by bombarding 208Pb with 62Ni ions using a linear accelerator at GSI, Darmstadt. Hofmann et al. obtained 269Ds (T1/2 ≈ 100-400 ľs). Its most stable isotope, 281Ds, has a half-life of 11 s.

    Hofmann S.

    Armbruster P.

    Folger H.

    Heßberger F.P. et al.


    1995

    Discovery of the transactinide roentgenium (111Rg) by bombarding a 209Bi target with 64Ni ions using a linear accelerator at GSI, Darmstadt. Hofmann et al. obtained 272Rg (T1/2 ≈ 3-5 ms). The most stable isotope, 280Rg, has a half-life of about 2-8 s. The name roentgenium was approved in 2004. As of 2006 this is the heaviest element having a final name approved by IUPAC.

    Hofmann S.

    Armbruster P.

    Folger H.

    Heßberger F.P. et al.


    1995

    Discovery of the top (t) quark #, the last undiscovered quark belonging to the 3rd generation at Fermilab (director: J. Peoples) using the proton-antiproton collider Tevatron @. !!! It was announced as a simultaneous result of the efforts of several hundred scientists working in two competing teams represented by P. Grannis and H. Montgomery (DO Collaboration), and B. Carithers and G. Bellettini (CDF Collaboration). The t quark is a very massive particle - it "weighs" a little more than 10 H2O molecules.

    Carithers B. et al.

    Grannis P. et al.


    1996

    Claim of discovery of ununbium (112Uub) - a provisional IUPAC name for 112X - by bombarding a 208Pb target with 70Zn ions using a linear accelerator at GSI, Darmstadt, with contributors from JINR, Dubna. Hofmann et al. obtained 277Uub (T1/2 ≈ 450-1400 ľs).

    Hofmann S.

    Armbruster P.

    Folger H.

    Heßberger F.P. et al.


    1998

    Experimental proof of neutrino oscillation (neutrino mixing, change of flavor) involving 2nd and 3rd generation neutrinos. The Super-Kamiokande observations # show that a large part of muon neutrinos νμ produced in the atmosphere change into tau neutrinos ντ before they could reach the Earth's surface. Neutrino oscillation also means that neutrinos cannot be mass-less # like photons traveling at the speed of light.

    Koshiba M. (2002-p)


    1999

    Claimed production of ununquadium (114Uuq) by bombarding a 242,244Pu target with 48Ca ions. Oganessian et al. obtained 289Uuq with a half-life between 1.9-3.8 s (T1/2 ≈ 2.6 s). They also claim to have observed the decay @ of 288Uuq.

    Oganessian Yu.Ts.

    Abdullin F.Sh.

    Lobanov Yu.V.

    Polyakov A.N.

    Utyonkov V.K. et al.


    1999

    Determination of the number of neutrino types. The four LEP experiments resulted in Nν = 2.984 +/- 0.008 that translates to 3.

    Mnich J. et al.


    2000

    Announcing the production of quark-gluon plasma @ at CERN by colliding high-energy lead ions.


    2000

    Direct evidence for the existence of the tau neutrino ντ (which is the 3rd and the last type). The last of the particles in the Standard Model of elementary particles # was discovered by an international collaboration of 54 physicists at Fermilab, after a three-year analysis of data from the Direct Observation of the Nu Tau (DONUT #) experiment. The discovery of all SM particles took a little more than a century.

    Kodama K. et al.


    2000

    Claimed production of ununhexium (116Uuh) by bombarding 248Cm with cyclotron-accelerated 48Ca ions. Oganessian et al. obtained 292Uuh (T1/2 ≈ 18 ms), which was identified by its decay chain. Uuh is the heaviest element so far (as of 2006) whose existence has been reported and reproduced.

    Oganessian Yu.Ts.

    Abdullin F.Sh.

    Lobanov Yu.V.

    Polyakov A.N.

    Utyonkov V.K. et al.


    2002

    The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory # (SNO) confirmed that the flux of all neutrinos (νe etc.) coming from the Sun matches the prediction of the solar standard model for electron neutrinos alone. However, only half of them are electron neutrinos. This solved the solar neutrino problem. (Fusion processes in the Sun only produce νe. Physicists were puzzled when it turned out in 1967 that only 1/3-1/2 of the predicted number reaches the Earth. Now, if they can change into other types during the journey, the puzzle is solved.)


    2002

    Observation of two-proton decay in ground-state 45Fe, a proton-rich nuclide near the proton dripline. The half-life found is quite long (about 5 ms). (The first report on beta-delayed two-proton decay of 22Al was published in 1981 by M.D. Cable, J. Honkanen et al.)

    Giovinazzo J.

    de Oliveira Santos F.

    Grzywacz R.

    Borcea C.

    Brown B.A. et al.


    2003

    It was proved by experiment that bismuth is a radioactive element. Its only naturally occurring isotope, 209Bi, undergoes 3.137 MeV α decay with a half life of 1.9×1019 a to produce 205Tl, the more abundant of the two stable isotopes of thallium.

    de Marcillac P.

    Coron N.

    Dambier G.

    Leblanc J.

    Moalic J-P.


    2003

    Explanation of the extreme radiation resistance of Deinococcus radiodurans, called Conan the Bacterium by its fans ever since its 1956 discovery in γ-ray-sterilized canned meat that got spoiled. The red bacterium can withstand a thousand times higher dose than any other life form and three thousand times more than us humans. The key to its high radioresistance is supposed to be the ringlike structure of the genome.

    Levin-Zaidman S.

    Englander J.

    Shimoni E.

    Sharma A.K.

    Minton K.W.

    Minsky A.


    2004

    Announcement of the production of ununtrium (113Uut) at RIKEN by bombarding 209Bi with cyclotron-accelerated 70Zn ions. Morita et al. obtained 278Uut with T1/2 ≈ 0.24 ms (0.13-1.38 ms). As of 2006 this element would be the first one discovered by Japanese scientists.

    Morita K.

    Akiyama T.

    Goto S-i.

    Kaji D.

    Morimoto K. et al


    2004

    Collaborating Russian (JINR) and American (GTSI) scientists lead by Oganessian reported the synthesis of ununpentium (115Uup) in the reaction 243Am(48Ca,xn)287, 288Uup. The half-life of 287Uup was estimated 18-187 ms (T1/2 ≈ 32 ms), while that of 288Uup was 57-192 ms (T1/2 ≈ 87 ms).

    Oganessian Yu.Ts.

    Utyonkov V.K. et al. (JINR)

    Moody K.J.

    Patin J.B. et al. (GTSI)


    2006

    Collaborating Russian (JINR) and American (GTSI) scientists lead by Oganessian reported the synthesis of ununoctium (118Uuo) in the reaction 249Cf(48Ca,3n)294Uuo. The half-life of the α-decaying even-even isotope 294Uuo was estimated 0.57-1.96 ms (T1/2 ≈ 0.89 ms).

    Oganessian Yu.Ts.

    Utyonkov V.K. et al. (JINR)

    Moody K.J.

    Patin J.B. et al. (GTSI)


    2006

    A Princeton-led group reported discovery of bacteria 2.8 km underground (Mponeng Gold Mine, South Africa) deriving energy from the radioactivity of rocks rather than from sunlight. The life of these sulfate reducers (related to Desulfotomaculum) depends on the hydrogen produced by the radiolysis of water.

    Lin L-H.

    Wang P-L.

    Rumble D.

    Lippmann-Pipke J.

    Boice E. et al.


    2007

    An IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party is considering claims for the discovery of the "transroentgenium" elements with Z = 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, and 118.

    Karol P.J. et al.


    2008

    The 27 km long Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN starts test runs in preparation for p-p collision experiments to study the conditions right after the Big Bang. The final collision energy is planned to be 14 TeV. To achieve this, proton beams moving in the opposite direction have to be accelerated to 7 TeV before head-on collision takes place between them.


    2009-2010 On July 14, 2009, press release from GSI, Darmstadt, suggested the name copernicium (Cp) for element 112Uub whose 1996 claim of discovery was accepted by IUPAC in May 2009. Later that year the suggested symbol was changed to Cn as it turned out that Cp was already in use till 1949 indicating cassiopeium, a synonimous name for lutetium, now outdated. On February 20, 2010, IUPAC announces official acceptance !!! of the name and symbol.

    2011 Discovery of the elements with Z = 114 and 116 has been accepted and the priority assigned by the IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP) on the basis of several papers published by the Dubna-Livermore collaboration (Oganessian et al., 2004). See also the IUPAC report. The names of the elements would be proposed by the collaboration.

    Quote from hunter

    Are you seriously? After the clamor aroused by F&P announce, all the world explored the cold fusion D+D in Pd hypothesis getting nothing as they claimed.

    That is not even slightly true. That's light years away from true. All the world, my ass. There were not 20 people in the world capable of replicating the experiment in 1989, and every one of them did replicate before the end of the year. Most of the others were trying to tune a piano with a sledgehammer. (See http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJlessonsfro.pdf, p. 10, 11) Some of them reportedly confused the anode and the cathode.


    In the years that followed, more people were able to replicate, but there was never a time when "all the world" could do this.


    Let me again suggest you learn something about cold fusion before commenting. Read the critiques in the mass media, and compare them to the facts. You will see the authors of these critiques know nothing about the subject. None of them published a paper in literature as far as I know, and I would know, wouldn't I?


    Here is a depressing example:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294


    Huizenga and Frank Close are exceptions, of course. I suggest you read Huizenga's book. See for yourself. Read Beaudette's summary, which I summary-summarized here:


    http://pages.csam.montclair.ed…lski/cf/293wikipedia.html



    Good scientists believe what they think is true, not what other people tell them. Sure, there are people who don't care, as there are in any profession.


    THHuxley, from whom I take my nom de plume:


    My convictions, positive and negative, on all the matters of which you speak, are of long and slow growth and are firmly rooted. But the great blow which fell on me seemed to stir them to their foundation, and had I lived a couple of centuries earlier I could have fancied a devil scoffing at me and them — and asking me what profit it was to have stripped myself of the hopes and consolations of the mass of mankind? To which my only reply was and is — Oh devil! Truth is better than much profit. I have searched over the grounds of my belief, and if wife and child and name and fame were all to be lost to me one after the other as the penalty, still I will not lie.


    But the longer I live, the more obvious it is to me that the most sacred act of a man's life is to say and to feel, 'I believe such and such to be true.' All the greatest rewards and all the heaviest penalties of existence cling about that act. The universe is one and the same throughout; and if the condition of my success in unraveling some little difficulty of anatomy or physiology is that I shall rigorously refuse to put faith in that which does not rest on sufficient evidence, I cannot believe that the great mysteries of existence will be laid open to me on other terms.... I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and hopes upon weaker convictions. I dare not if I would.

    Quote from hunter

    2011 Gran Sasso: Claimed discovery of muon neutrinos whose speed exceeds the speed of light in empty space. The relative difference was claimed to be significantly larger than the statistical and systematic error together. (See some comments: Neutrino stories move faster than the speed of science.) The claim was withdrawn by CERN in a press release on June 8, 2012. Adam T. et al.

    Perhaps you should not have included that one? It doesn't look good.


    I am acquainted with modern science. I subscribe to Scientific American. The breakthroughs you list are impressive, but nothing like the breakthroughs and the progress of the early 20th century. Perhaps we really have reached the end of history, and there are no more big discoveries to be made. I doubt that. The physicists I know doubt that. I think it is more likely that funding, peer-review and other attributes of modern scientific are dysfunctional. Note that peer-review as we know it did not exist in 1920. Einstein and others were surprised and nonplussed when it was introduced. I regard it mainly as a method by which old establishment scientists suppress young scientists and steal their ideas. I will grant that Mel Miles and other think highly of it.


    In any case, all of these breakthroughs together are not 0.1% as important as cold fusion will be, if it is ever funded and made into a practical source of energy. I have no doubt it can be made practical, because it has already achieved the temperatures and power density of a fission reactor core, in reactions lasting for weeks, as I explained in my video. If it can happen once, it can happen a billion times a day. However, I am increasingly pessimistic that research will ever be funded. So, it will probably be forgotten.

    Quote

    All the world, my ass. There were not 20 people in the world capable of replicating the experiment in 1989, and every one of them did replicate before the end of the year


    I'm a bit skeptics to believe that you have checked all what they did in all nations of the world, nothing comes up also after 1989.

    Anyway I suggested you here how to bypass the issue, if you are really sure of yourself why not perform it.


    Quote

    In any case, all of these breakthroughs together are not 0.1% as important as cold fusion will be


    To be precise, you believe.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Good scientists believe what they think is true, not what other people tell them.

    In that case we suffer from a deficit of good scientists. I assure you, most of them care about funding first and last. And parking spaces, according the Dean at a Major University. They are in it for the money. What would you expect, given projects funded at billions of dollars that have made no progress for decades, such as hot fusion or the SDI? What kind of people would you expect work in such jobs? Do you think someone sincerely interested in progress or science would happily devote an entire career to a dead-end project? They remind me of IBM programmers in the 1980s who happily devoted years to projects that they, I, and everyone else knew would never see the light of day, such as IBM PC DOS, and mainframe projects. They pulled down big salaries. That's all they cared about. They resembled the people in the Dilbert comic strip.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    THHuxley, from whom I take my nom de plume:


    My convictions, positive and negative, on all the matters of which you speak, are of long and slow growth and are firmly rooted. . . .

    Huxley was exceptional in many ways. Most prominently because he was honest, and willing to give credit where it is due, a quality which was rare in the 19th century and practically extinct today. Patrick Geddes described a famous incident with Huxley, in which Huxley declared himself wrong, and his student right:


    [When Geddes was] instructed by Huxley to examine the radula of a whelk, he found that the mechanism was different from that described by his master. Huxley told him to look again, then looked again himself and slapped his student's shoulder in delight: "'Pon my word, you're right!," he declared. "You got me! I was wrong! Capital! I must publish this for you!" -- and had the discovery published by Geddes in the Zoological Society's Transactions explicitly as a correction of his own work.


    - T. H. Huxley A Biography by Cyril Bibby, Page 111


    I have seen this incident described elsewhere. It is famous. Why is it so famous? Because it may have been the only time in history a professor did that. Other professors would deny what they see under the microscope. They would ridicule and humiliate the student, sack him at the first opportunity, and then steal the idea and publish it themselves. Perhaps I exaggerate, but that happens far more often in academia than the good-hearted Mr. Chips-style Huxley incident. The only academic scientist I know who would act the way Huxley did is T. Mizuno. The others would grudgingly admit they are wrong the next day, after arguing and ridiculing the young person in front of an audience, as Oppenheimer did to Dyson (rather famously).


    Naturally, people do this in other professions. It is typical primate behavior, after all. But it happens less often in other walks of life. With programming or bricklaying you have to get the job done. You have to get the product out the door. If a young person knows how to do it well, his supervisor may well try to get him fired, but company owner is more likely to intervene. Results count and if you do a bad job you lose customers and you go out of business. Whereas scientists can do a bad job for decades and no one notices. As they say, academic politics are particularly vicious because the stakes are so low.

    Let me tell you all something. I've been following the subject of exotic phenomena for many years now. I've learned that even when the overall evidence is tremendous, skeptics and naysayers (even the ones that are attempting to be honest and are not paid trolls) are not going to be convinced unless you have something literally undeniable to shove in their faces. Take the revelations of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. The director of the program -- with no one from the military or government saying he is lying -- claims that our military has detected extremely advanced craft flying through our skies demonstrating a level of technology that is beyond comprehension. Basically, due to the lack of any conventional Newtonian propulsion systems (propellers, rockets, jet engines) these are field effect craft capable of instant (2.5 second) acceleration to hypersonic speeds. However, since his program doesn't actually have one of these craft to show off, only a tiny minority of the population takes their existence seriously.


    LENR is something else that the mainstream scientific community has claimed to be totally impossible for decades, despite a huge amount of evidence to the contrary. The problem here is two fold: there have been tiny gaps of wiggle room left open to interpret the results in different ways and there is no specific set of instructions to build a system with absolutely no wiggle room whatsoever. To eliminate any doubt about an LENR experiment being conclusive (results so indisputable even a cynic would have to go to absurd lengths to dismiss them), a reactor should be capable of the following:


    1) High output -- We need single reactors that will heat up to levels FAR HIGHER than a control both in terms of COP and in terms of total power. A COP of ten won't convince the skeptics if the output is only a watt and the input is one tenth of a watt. But a hundred watts in and a thousand watts of power out is far more convincing.


    2) Self Sustained output -- We need to be able to ELIMINATE the input power all together so this is no longer an issue. Measuring input power can be extremely tricky especially when AC power is used or there are high voltage spikes. The cynics will always claim there is a problem with measuring the input power, so we need to take away this method of attack. A self sustaining reactor maintaining the SAME TEMPERATURE for a significant length of time when a control reactor had cooled by hundreds of degrees to near ambient would be ideal. This period of self sustain should also be able to be repeated over and over.


    3) Cumulative output -- The output over time should be a huge multiple over all the potential chemical reactions that could take place in the reactor -- even calculating in the mass of the inert components. This would remove any argument about chemical reactions.


    4) Replication Instructions -- The device should be capable of being replicated successfully with extremely high repeat-ability


    Achieving all of the above four things is what's required to make the skeptical world shut up and accept the reality of cold fusion. The reason is that when replications of such a system start happening their reputation will be hurt MORE by denying the reality of the phenmenon than by admitting the truth that LENR is a reality. Remember, to the cynics and naysayers that aren't paid trolls, image and reputation are everything. They care what others think about them. Our goal should be to make them feel completely cornered with no way out of admitting that the device is working as claimed. The only way to do that is to eliminate every single weapon in their arsenal. Once this happens, they'll have to relent.

    Quote from Director

    1) High output -- We need single reactors that will heat up to levels FAR HIGHER than a control both in terms of COP and in terms of total power. A COP of ten won't convince the skeptics if the output is only a watt and the input is one tenth of a watt. But a hundred watts in and a thousand watts of power out is far more convincing.


    2) Self Sustained output --

    Belling the Cat

    LONG ago, the mice had a general council to consider what measures they could take to outwit their common enemy, the Cat. Some said this, and some said that; but at last a young mouse got up and said he had a proposal to make, which he thought would meet the case. "You will all agree," said he, "that our chief danger consists in the sly and treacherous manner in which the enemy approaches us. Now, if we could receive some signal of her approach, we could easily escape from her. I venture, therefore, to propose that a small bell be procured, and attached by a ribbon round the neck of the Cat. By this means we should always know when she was about, and could easily retire while she was in the neighbourhood."


    This proposal met with general applause, until an old mouse got up and said: "That is all very well, but who is to bell the Cat?" The mice looked at one another and nobody spoke. Then the old mouse said:

    "IT IS EASY TO PROPOSE IMPOSSIBLE REMEDIES."

    https://www.bartleby.com/17/1/67.html



    Suggestions for what can be done with what we actually have now, and that we can actually accomplish, are helpful. Your suggestions boil down to an Anna Russell statement: Things would be so different, if they were not as they are.

    Jed has laid out the case well for believing ENR is real. If you can't accept that data nothing will persuade you short of commercial sales of reactors.


    hunter's rebutals were not persuasive. He and other critics here (who think they are a majority outside this forem) state they will not believe any experiment so far or that is likely to happen in the next few months.

    Wht not believe them and quit wasting time trying to persuade them? I have.


    The F&P method seems too difficu;t to scale uo for commercial use, so thoers are of monre interest. I think it a mistake to write off Rossi before seeing what he has to offer in January and that commercial units will not be out there until mid 2019. If he has teaned up with a large manuacturing organozation it is likel that he has something.

    Quote from hunter

    I'm a bit skeptics to believe that you have checked all what they did in all nations of the world, nothing comes up also after 1989.

    I have papers and reports from every nation in the world, for 1989 and every year after that. Over 5,000 reports in all. Collected by Storms, Britz and me. No doubt I missed some. I have heard they keep some research secret in China, but they also publish a lot. I have many reports in Japanese, and I am confident I covered most of the work there. Most of these projects were also reported in English.


    I do not know what you mean by "nothing comes up after 1989." Most replications were after 1989, as I said. You claimed that all the world was interested and there was a flurry of research. People have often said that, but there is no evidence it happened. If there was a flurry, most of the people never bothered to report their results. There were only a few serious, documented attempts to replicate in 1989 and 1990. Most of them succeeded. By 1991, public interest in the field was long gone, but replications increased and the quality of the work improved.

    I think in that case the mice should organize to come up with a plan to put the bell on the cat's neck. Just because an idea isn't easy doesn't mean it's not feasible. I'm convinced that there are multiple design features, fuel prep mechanisms, and stimulation methods that could be utilized to produce a device like I suggest. The part that would be challenging is getting a team together to produce such a device OR getting a lone inventor (like me356) to go open source with their systems. We can only hope that a good open source team forms somewhere (I would say that the MFMP group is such a team except that they mostly do one off tests) or that someone like me356 eventually keeps their promises.

    Quote from Director

    I'm convinced that there are multiple design features, fuel prep mechanisms, and stimulation methods that could be utilized to produce a device like I suggest.

    Are you?! In that case, I suggest you write a set of technical specifications describing how to do this.

    Hello Jed,


    I'm not an engineer or someone that's highly technically skilled with real world hands-on building experience. So in the process of trying to provide exact technical specifications, I'd probably make errant suggestions based on a lack of know how on the practical side of fabrication, matching components, working with oscilloscopes, working with hydrogen, handling fuel samples (for example proper setup and use of a glove box), and a list of other things. What I can do is try to elaborate on my rough ideas for what could be optimized systems. Of course, in the real world, those building and testing such systems would most likely be required to make modifications, large and small. Moreover, they'd need to perform a number of runs (not one off tests) to nail down the critical parameters. But I think my thoughts would have merit if a team of competent technical individuals were to utilize them. I could be wrong. I admit that.


    Another issue that complicates this situation is that once someone reaches (or at least believes they have arrived at) a certain level of understanding, there are many possible directions to follow. Me356 stressed this in the past. Then the issue becomes what design and features match the resources available to the potential builders. I have ideas on what might be optimal for purely powder based systems with little electromagnetic stimulation, ideas for purely power based systems with high levels of EM stimulation (which would require more sophisticated equipment and skillsets), ideas for almost purely PLASMA based systems (which in some ways are more complex but in other ways would be simpler), and then more elaborate designs that are combinations of themes. It would be a challenge for me to pick one specific idea out of these as the best system to replicate. Because like I said before, it depends on the equipment, tools, materials, fuel stock, and skills of the specific group of replicators.


    If anyone wants to know my ideas they are welcome to contact me and I'll share them: even if they are going to be laughing at me privately. I just want to see LENR move forward and be accepted as hard reality.


    But I will share a few themes that I think are important that everyone should consider.


    1) Surface Area -- I think that within reason the surface area of the "fuel" should be made as large as possible if we're talking about a powder/wire type system. Of course there are all sorts of considerations here such as not going too small in particle size because sintering becomes a real problem at higher temperatures.


    2) Atomic Hydrogen -- This is a hugely important. Personally, I don't think most people give this issue nearly the attention it deserves. Simply put, if you are going to produce nickel-hydrogen reactions and hope to have significant excess heat (beyond what Piantelli and Focardi achieved) utilizing some method of dissociating molecular hydrogen to atomic hydrogen is needed. I've heard of a half dozen ideas of how to do this, but not every idea would work in every potential design. But whatever kind of reactor you're building, you should incorporate at least one method (or more) of producing atomic hydrogen to accelerate the adsorption, dissociation, and absorption process. If you don't, then the ultra high temperatures that Parkhomov is using in his Ni-H system may be required to start thermally cracking H2. With proper methods of producing and applying atomic hydrogen, excess heat can start occurring at far lower temperatures in gas phase systems. In an interview or talk with the author of "Secrets of the E-Cat", Sergio Focardi mentions that he believed Rossi's original catalyst was an additive used to dissociate molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen. I think after all the work of Mizuno and others, along with all the hints dropped, we can be fairly confident he was using palladium as particles or a thin film acting as a spillover catalyst. Sergio Focardi also stated that the excess heat effect would start at around 60C to 70C -- which in my opinion is extremely impressive. Regardless what anyone thinks about Rossi -- good, bad, or horrible -- I don't think Sergio was an idiot that Rossi was tricking into seeing excess heat that didn't exist. Interestingly, palladium isn't the only spillover catalyst that exists. There are a bunch of them! Also, there's MANY other ways of producing atomic hydrogen.


    3) Use of Plasma -- A hydrogen plasma will produce atomic hydrogen. There's a whole bunch of ways to generate a plasma that vary greatly in complexity and effort required. One method is simply a hot tungsten filament (which might not be ideal for producing a high level of ionization in the reactor) but could produce thermionic electrons and atomic hydrogen. Yet another method is the utilizing of RF, MW, or glow discharge. Interestingly, when hydrogen is exposed to these types of stimulation not only atomic hydrogen is generated but also "hot" species of atomic hydrogen which have higher energies (35-40eV or more instead of 5ev or less). The use of certain gases like argon and helium can potentially increase this effect in some ways (increasing the percentage of hot hydrogen species and hot electrons in the reactor) while perhaps slightly lowering the average energy. This is all documented in the literature. If you want to get hydrogen into the nickel lattice, this will surely accelerate the process: not only providing atomic hydrogen but allowing the hydrogen atoms to penetrate more deeply and energetically into the surface. Of course, we may not want to transform the surface into "pure" nickel hydride which can happen quickly under certain conditions and pressures when using atomic hydrogen. My guess is we want to have hydrogen migrate through the surface of the nickel and form pockets, voids, cracks, dislocations, and other areas where charge separation (resulting in EVO/Strange Radiation) can take place. For this reason I think repeated cycles of vacuum, absorption, and desorption (utilizing a modest level of atomic hydrogen generation) should be utilized. Too much atomic hydrogen may turn the surface layer of the nickel into uniform NiH while too little may reduce absorption too low for nano-scale lattice features to form.


    4) Fuel Prep -- If such a plasma is being utilized as described above, I think that there are still many ways that the fuel can be optimized BEFORE the plasma is ever turned on. I think in addition to having a source of plasma in the reactor, utilizing a small high temperature (perhaps tungsten) crucible to evaporate a quantity of palladium or another spillover catalyst could be very useful. Also, I've read that intentionally creating an oxide coating on nickel particles and then chemically reducing it with hydrogen can create a highly textured surface. If you have a source of ionization, a gas mixture including oxygen could be placed into the reactor and then stimulated to accelerate the formation of NiO. The subsequent cycles of hydrogen adsorption and desoption would reduce and eliminate the NiO while leaving a roughened surface.


    5) Cat Material -- I firmly believe that the choice of surrounding material for the reactor is important. I think that there are unique particles that are being generated in LENR reactions that often escape the inner reactor core.


    6) Pure Plasma Systems -- If you want to build something like a Quark, I have a hunch that although there may be a TON of parameters to tweak (many of which would require a lot of electrical expertise and the ability to write software) which could require some serious work, in other ways the fundamentals of the system could be incredibly simple. I believe the Quark is very close in design to those of Chernetski and Correa's systems. However, it utilizes some common sense enhancements that do many things such as perhaps protecting the cathode/anode, confining the plasma form a larger electrode to a very narrow channel, using the magnetic mirror effect to keep the EVOs/SR in the middle of that channel, and others. Moreover, if we look at the literature of other experiments that have been performed, we can see how the voltage requirements to create the initial plasma could be reduced. For example, I've read it cited that lithium in a hydrogen plasma can reduce the turn on voltage in one specific system (this would vary dramatically depending upon electrode geometry and materials) from 250 volts per centimeter down to 2 volts. Again, maybe I'm fooling myself. Laugh at me. Don't take me seriously. I don't care. But these are the thoughts in my head. I have came to the conclusion that of all the LENR system designs around, something like the Quark is most likely the most efficient once it is perfected. Literally, it will be like plugging in vacuum tubes in the back of an old television, except these will produce excess heat and electrical power.


    I could go on and on. I haven't covered a fraction of the thoughts in my mind. But the above is enough for now. If anyone wants my additional thoughts, all they have to do is contact me.

    Quote

    There were not 20 people in the world capable of replicating the experiment in 1989, and every one of them did replicate before the end of the year


    I have papers and reports from every nation in the world

    A small library of a private is not same thing of large IAEA database (it’s absolutely incomparable), anyway If we are talking only of serious and high qualified Labs, about German nation can you show the official test Report of Max-Plank Institute? They surely were between those “capable of”.

    I’m interested to read just it (a MP test report, not other exotic people or single D person opinion) because MP is WW famous and they have an high knowledge and skill in nuclear matter and Lab tests. Show me this Report.


    Quote

    I do not know what you mean by "nothing comes up after 1989.

    It means that neither after 1989 (and until now) the worldwide scientific community (including MP) never confirmed the F&P claim of CF.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.