Sorry, but according to Popper’s criterion, a scientific theory must have the possibility of falsifiability
I'm sorry if I was not clear. My point was that the claims from CERN (for example) do not have any possibility of being falsified, in that nobody has access to the machine, the raw data, or the data engineering methods used. It might be good science, it might not, but nobody outside CERN could ever know.
The fact that LENR can be used to explain suhc things means that it is too imprecisely defined to be science - and therefore pseudo-science.
I would remind you that something that is not falsifiable is definitely not science. For example, the scientific claims that come out of CERN are not falsifiable, because nobody else has the equipment to replicate them, so that never happens, the algorithms used to extract results are secret and thus not available for error checking, and the raw data itself is never released.
Apart from those problems I believe every claim they make. Even if the evidence is not so much imprecisely defined as totally invisible, because they all have nice clean lab coats.
I must remind members that this is a news thread, not a discussion thread.
The universe always exists. Universes arise and disintegrate only in our heads as a result of the collapse and transformation of consciousness!!!
That is a statement of faith, and not a scientific principle since the statement cannot be proven false.
Also this thread has now become very 'off topic/ Please refer to the thread title before posting to make sure that you are 'on topic'.
WHAT'S FUELLING THE COMMERCIAL FUSION HYPE?
Article from: - https://thebulletin.org/2024/0…rRisk_FusionHype_02202024
Recent White House and Energy Department pronouncements on speeding up the “commercialization” of fusion energy are so over the top as to make you wonder about the scientific competence in the upper reaches of the government.
In April 2022, the White House launched what it called a “bold decadal vision” for a 10-year program to “accelerate the realization of commercial fusion energy.” The “bold” part is the proposal, in questionable analogy with high-speed computing, to do in parallel all the development steps that are typically done sequentially to bring a new technology to the market. According to the White House, this parallel processing would include: technology development, preparing a regulatory system (including rules for fusion reactor exports), securing the supply chain, identifying high-value markets, training a diverse workforce, and gaining public support, all “to support the rapid scale-up of fusion energy facilities.”
The special attraction of fusion is of course that it offers a potential source of abundant carbon-free energy that does not generate radioactive nuclear waste. But just because it would be nice if controlled fusion could work doesn’t mean it’s on the verge of doing so. The hard truth is that scientists and engineers don’t even know yet whether controlled fusion can be achieved to make useful work, at least anywhere outside the sun (and other stars, of course).
A historical perspective is useful to understand where the hype about commercial fusion is coming from.
We have known about fusion powering the sun since Hans Bethe explained it in 1939. This was also almost exactly when Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann discovered uranium fission (and Lise Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch explained it). Then in 1942, Enrico Fermi and a small number of co-workers demonstrated a controlled fission chain reaction in a squash court at the University of Chicago. Fermi spent about $50 million in today’s dollars on building his 20-foot-tall atomic pile.
More than 80 years later, the corresponding control-of-fusion principle has yet to be demonstrated experimentally and the US government already made $35 billion in cumulative fusion expenditure—with probably a comparable investment abroad—without yet knowing what works.
The White House’s approach to attain success appears based on the idea that enthusiasm and coordination of all diverse stakeholders backed up with enough money can solve a so-far-unsolved scientific problem. Administration spokespersons mention projects that were successfully accelerated in this way, like the 1969 trip to the moon. Sure, this was indeed a hugely successful monumental project at the time, but no one involved doubted it was possible to do. All the necessary component technologies, like rockets and communications, were in hand on a smaller scale. In the case of fusion power reactors, no one is yet sure what they would look like, let alone if they will turn out to be possible and practicable.
RELATED:
COP28 and the nuclear energy numbers racket
The main research track today in fusion energy is “magnetic confinement”—configuring magnetic fields to keep in place a plasma of thermonuclear fuel 10 times hotter than the sun’s core within a donut-shaped magnetic “bottle.” Dozens of such machines—known as “tokamaks,” a Russian-language transliteration for toroidal chamber with axial magnetic field—have been built around the world since the 1950s, but none got close to demonstrating a net energy gain. Controlled fusion, it turns out, is an extremely difficult problem. To solve it, fusion experts have concluded the key is to have a large enough facility.
The world’s largest experimental fusion machine—ITER (initially the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, also meaning “the way” in Latin)—is nearing completion in France. It is a highly complex scientific and engineering project. ITER publicity describes the building housing the reactor as “slightly taller than the Arc de Triomphe in Paris,” and that the building foundation will support some 400,000 metric tons—“more than the weight of New York’s Empire State Building.” Started in 2006, ITER is a 35-country megaproject that was supposed to be completed in 2016 at a cost of $6 billion. The reactor is currently projected to start up in 2025, but even that appears to be an optimistic date, as is the total budget estimate of about $22 billion.
The initial design objective is to produce a fusion plasma with thermal power 10 times greater than the injected thermal power. Even if successful, this net power output would not yet be the fusion equivalent of Fermi’s 1942 experimental nuclear pile, which proved the controlled fission concept. Nor would ITER’s more ambitious subsequent goal of maintaining this plasma for eight minutes. To get to proof of principle would likely take another step or an upgrading of ITER.
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s weapons laboratory pursued another approach of “internal confinement,” to create a fusion reaction at its National Ignition Facility (NIF) and claimed it could have power application. NIF uses light pulses from a concentric battery of powerful lasers to heat a small target containing a tiny bead of frozen thermonuclear fuel. This is, in effect, a miniature (secondary) thermonuclear bomb, with the lasers playing the role of the triggering fission reactions (primary). The light heats the container material sufficiently to ablate and swiftly compress the fuel to the point of detonation, which lasts some billionths of a second. The experiment was directed primarily at developing a useful diagnostic tool for weapons research. In power application, you would have to repeat the explosions at an extraordinarily fast rate, which is a tall order.
Despite its lack of promise for civilian use, the Energy Department and the White House have used the Livermore controlled fusion experiment results to boost the effort to harness fusion power for civilian purposes. In December 2022, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced with great fanfare that a laser pulse ignited a fusion reaction that produced more energy than was supplied by the light beams: “This milestone moves us one significant step closer to the possibility of zero carbon abundant energy powering our society … a huge step forward to the president’s goal of achieving commercial fusion within a decade.” (Update: In less than nine years from now.)
RELATED:
The nuclear year in review: A renewed interest in nuclear weapons—for and against
In her energy balance, however, the energy secretary forgot to account for the energy it took to create the laser beams. This energy input, when added, drastically reverses her conclusion, with the fusion output then amounting to only about one percent of the input. This is not disqualifying from a scientific point of view, but it obviously is in a power generating application. Still, this hasn’t stopped the Energy Department from including Livermore’s fusion ignition experiment in a promotional video on the “7 moments that changed nuclear energy history.” The clip claims “[t]he Lab was the first to produce more energy from a fusion reaction than was used to start the process,” again forgetting the energy it took to power the lasers.
Most people in the field still pin their hopes on the international ITER project for advancing the possibility of fusion power. One thing we know already is that, if a magnetic confinement fusion power reactor ever works, it will be huge and expensive. This contrasts with current thinking in energy policy that inclines to a more decentralized electrical system powered by more affordable and flexible generators. With fusion power being so difficult to demonstrate—even in principle—it will likely suffer a much longer time between proof of principle, if we ever get there, and significant commercial application. So, forget the Energy Department’s parallel processing path promise.
A recent White House announcement on fusion had a link to an Atlantic Council discussion on fusion. In it, former Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz, a physicist, said he drew confidence about the prospects of fusion power from knowing that $5 billion of private capital has been invested. This showed him that “somebody must think this has got a good chance of working.” At the same time, if true, the funders who committed the $5 billion were surely drawing confidence from the fusion physicists’ enthusiastic claims. This circular reasoning does make one wonder.
It’s not surprising that the fusion research community at the Energy Department is gushing with enthusiasm for commercialization of fusion and the near-term prospect of building pilot plants and revolutionizing electricity generation. But as with any big-bet investment, some perspective about the possibilities and risks involved is in order. Where is the US government agency that will provide such a perspective?
As Paul Sutter explains, the universe was different early on as verified by the CERN collider. The forces that we now have were different early on, There is a loophole in nature where those early states of the universe can now be created inside the EVO.
The dinner I ate yesterday was also different then,
My comment: the text was too ambiguous to know - and more tellingly they list it in the results so far summary, not the advances on state of the art so far summary. So presumably they do not view it as that
These reports are written for the funders in the EU, not the scientific community.
Thank you Jed, as always, you are not only doing a great job, but performing a real tangible service to the whole community of cold fusion researchers.
DIY Nuclear batteries for all...at your own risk.
I disagree with parts of Krivit's letter.
"Deuterium is not widely available, but it can be extracted from water, which is widely available."
I disagree too, but simply adding the word 'Pure' in front of 'Deuterium' would fix it.
About 5 minutes,
Your system seems to be very promising according to your words but you give no detail to know if it's easy to tune the power, the COP, the device size vs the output power, the temperature range of the output power, the time needed to trigger the reaction..etc etc.
Yes, Do you have data you can share?
My son gave me boxes of family photos to store ... but he doesn't want them back.
Re photos, I inherited a small suitcase full of family photos around 20 years ago, In the end i had them all digitised and put them onto CD-Roms (4) and distributed them around the family. The physical photos I shared out with my siblings, where we had a little party and decided who should have what.
They use strong alkaline D2O, which load D+ into metal with OD-, not with D+, thus the paradium need to be positive in place of negative, which is the current incorrect condition of strong alkaline D2O Cold Fusion.
But many have used acid electrolytes,
As part of post war reconstruction?
Earlier I think. I know the person who translated a lot of it into more modern Japanese recently. I will enquire.
Gennadiy.
I have removed your last post, which was entirely about politics and economics. We do not encourage that.
Did anyone get the links to the article to work?
They work for me.
I translated a bunch of legal documents from English into Japanese with the DeepL translation program (https://www.deepl.com/translator). I do not know much about the law and I have never translated legalese. It was a tremendous help. I had my TextAloud screen reader read the Japanese while I checked the English. It made very few mistakes. Most of the mistakes were inconsequential and easy to spot. It is much better than Google translate or ChatGPT.
Did you know btw that Japan adopted the Korean Legal Code in almost it's entirety to use as their own?
DOWNLOAD
Author: Lewis, Edward
Almanac: Kondratieff waves:Processes, Cycles, Triggers, and Technological Paradigms
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30884/978-5-7057-6191-3_03
Paradigm shifts in physics happen at 80-year intervals due to two constraints on physics and technology development that constrained the duration of paradigm development to average 80 years. These two constraints cause three generations to produce a physics paradigm and begin the industrialization during an industrial revolution. During each industrial revolution, there is a depressionary era due to the low productivity growth of the dying industries and the transition of the economy to new industries. Another depressionary era begins about 30 years after the end of the depressionary period of the industrial revolution. These depressions are times of high productivity growth when the industries reach the mature stage. The switch of emphasis from product innovation to process innovation causes depressionary eras during which the high corporate and consumer debt, product satiation, oligopoly formation, and increased automation that reduces the demand for labor cause depressions. The duration of the Kondratieff waves varies from about 40 to about 53 years depending on how quickly a paradigm is accepted.
Keywords: paradigm shifts in physics, scientific revolutions, industrial revolution, paradigm shift cycle, long wave cycle, economic long wave, Kondratieff waves, technological revolution, economic depression, technological acceleration, productivity growth acceleration, automation, unemployment, crisis periods, product innovation, process innovation, automation, labor displacement, physics paradigms.
