For utility, I've collected the URLs I've put togethor concerning the cold fusion phenomenon that I've posted in these two threads

1) http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30106
2) http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30014

<a href="http://www.lenr-canr.org/">Best site of on-going Cold Fusion research.</a><br>
<a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html ">Often cited article "What if Cold Fusion Was Real?"</a><br>
<a href="http://www.analogsf.com/0306/altview.shtml">Another article (Part II, where is Part 1?).</a><br>
<a href="http://www.ncas.org/erab/contents.htm ">The First DOE Panel (White Wash?).</a><br>
<a href="http://www.energyscience.co.uk/le/cfindex.htm">Personal testimony of Harold Aspden.</a><br>
<a href="http://audio.kuer.org:8000/file/rw112702.mp3">Audio of Interview with Stanley McKubre and Charles Beaudette.</a><br>
<a href="http://www.rexresearch.com/adept/aa9col~1.htm">"Adept Alchemy" by Robert A. Nelson.</a><br>
<a href="http://www.iisc.ernet.in/pramana/sept99/i2.pdf ">September '99 paper by Raj K. Gupta.</a><br>
<a href="http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/coldf.html">Paper by Matti Pitkänen, Finland Physicist.</a><br>
<a href="http://users.erols.com/iri/LENREW.html ">Review of 6 hour video with many top names in the field.</a><br>
<a href="http://peacecountry0.tripod.com/cold_fusion.htm">Cold Fusion and Biological Transmutations speculations.</a><br>
<a href="http://www.infinite-energy.com">Journal with editor Eugene Mallove.</a><br>
<a href="http://home.netcom.com/~storms2/ ">Edmund Storms web site.</a><br>
<a href="http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/Brief_1989">Replace the year up to 2003 for summary of chronological events.</a><br>
<a href="http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/Pub_1989">Replace the year up to 2003 for Cold Fusion Bibliography.</a><br>
<a href="http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf">Major paper summarizing Navy research.</a><br><br><br>

I would be grateful if one wanted to add some more links in this thread. I must admit, I have left out the ones that are basically denying the phenomenon. Perhaps someone would like to collect those.

Either way I think this stuff is pretty important, either as a growing movement to defraud the world scientific community or the very serious allegation that the best science is shunned by our current institutions.

I just came back and edited this post to clean up the expired URLs and add some others that have been found. Look to the edited date to see when this occured. Enjoy.

Here is a link to Dr. Edmund Storms website. He has published
21 papers on cold fusion (CANR) and given many presentations,
including before congress this year. Dr. Storms has retired from
Los Alamos National Laboratories after 34 years of service, including
work on the effects of CANR.
http://home.netcom.com/~storms2/

So far, Amazon has only posted positive reviews of the book "Excess Heat"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967854814/103-8867001-8064614?v=glance

The web site http://quanthomme.free.fr/energielibre/fusion/liensff.html is from France but the URLs basically lead to English sites, including the very interesting work at JNLabs http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/html/cfr10.htm which I find hard to believe. Nevertheless, the main web site has many URLs, though you have to copy and paste them, to sites both pro and con on cold fusion.

A video clip from the film "Fire From Water," 1999

http://www.freespiritproductions.com/ColdFus56k.ram

2003 book online from Russian Professor Phillip M. Kanarev

"THE FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSCHEMISTRY OF MICRO WORLD"

http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/book/index.html

It would be neat to see or hear the speech given at Goddard Space Flight Center November 24 of this year:

http://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/announce.nagel.html

Well, at least one Nobel prize winner researched and endorsed the subject:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0303/0303078.pdf

Review of 10th international conference on cold fusion held in Cambridge, Mass. this year by Eugene Mallove:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue52/ifcc10review.html

Canadian Broadcasting Company, CBC, aired an interview with major researchers concerning cold fusion on December 13, 2003. You can get an mp3 file of it at http://www.radio.cbc.ca/programs/quirks/archives/03-04/dec13.html

While surfing for information about Quantum Computing, I encountered an interesting comment at the following site.http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-03/msg0022636.htmlNote the bolded sentence below. This is a from a discussion about Quantum computing. The participants are not amateur scientists. I emphasize that I mention only some of the many problems of QC, simply by reacting to the points you make. People in this area tend to sweep a great many things under the rug, not unlike cold fusion folks did.

By the time cold fusion was 5 years old, it was already completely and thoroughly discredited. Shor's algorithm is 6 years old, and quantum error correction is 5. Quantum computation, as a field, is still growing rapidly. Which is not to say it's necessarily right; but it is certainly not pathological science.Some experiments claim to measure excess heat, but to attribute this to nuclear fusion is totally unjustified.

One of the sites referenced here claim that cesium transmutes into some other element. I am not an expert in nuclear physics, but this seems to imply some consequences which would have been discovered 50 or more years ago. If cesium transmutes so easily, why not almost any other element?

BTW: I asume that the believers here are aware that the original cold Fusion experiments were done by chemists, not physicists. Furthermore, they announced to the ordinary news media rather than attempting to publish in a scientific journal. Did they expect a conspiracy that early in the game?

"completely and thoroughly discredited" and this guy, Daniel Gottesman, has been called "one of the world's top young innovators?" Within that first 5 years after 1989, physicists all over the globe confirmed and duplicated Fleischman and Pons research. I listed the names of a few of these in the thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30106 but I suggest people do some pointed searching about the subject themselves and make their own conclusions. Strange that Dr. Gottesman would make such a categorical extreme statement but who knows, maybe he's involved in some projects that receive funding from the corporate military complex.

Your citing of a non-substantiated, uncorroborated, uncited second hand comment aside, Dinosaur, I do appreciate your going out there and keeping this stuff in your mind while you search the web for other things and posting a little here now and then. Let's keep this thread in the lime-light. Thanks for the help.

Whether true or not, the cold fusion bru-ha-ha does point out something pathological about how human science is being developed. Do we have multiple conspiracies by well credentialed and esteemed individuals all over the globe, from within those first five years, chemists and physicists alike, and for all of the 24 years since then or do we have a conspiracy of entrenched vested interests trying to suppress a real challenge to their hold on power? One way or another there is conspiracy, either for or against the possibility of cold fusion.

I do not believe in grand conspiracies, but if there is a conspiracy, it is one trying to convince people of the worth of cold fusion, not vice versa.

It does not seem possible to me that a valid scientific truth can be suppressed for over 20 years. Cold nuclear fusion would be either so valuable, so interesting, or both that it just could not be suppressed. It would be easier to suppress hot fusion research due to the enormous cost and the complexity of the equipment required.

The military/industrial complex often does a fair job of suppressing information embarrassing to them, but they have yet to keep a scientific discovery or weapons system secret for anything like 20 years. Some terrible activities have remained hidden for so long that disclosure ceases to have any significant consequences for the perpetrators. (Examples being the syphilis experiments and other racist atrocities). Once a genie is let out of the bottle, it is never put back in. Cold Fusion has been out of the bottle for a long time, and mainstream science still ignores it.

There have always been strong motivations for advocating belief in nonsense. People make money telling fortunes, passing off stage magic as real phenomena, channeling, writing books and giving lectures about pseudo science, ESP, and the occult. Suppose you wrote a book about missing ships always being due to natural phenomena, or a book about there not having been any ET visitations, or a book about telepathy being impossible, or a book about not being able to tell fortunes. How many copies do you think you would sell?

Those in the academic community who cannot compete with mainstream scientists on true science can often get research money and/or jobs teaching parapsychology and other nonsense, because administrators are generally fund raisers, not scientists.

Only the best and the brightest can make it in the mathematics and the hard sciences. In those disciplines, when you are wrong it is obvious. In the soft sciences, pseudo sciences, occult, and paranormal disciplines you can be a charlatan (or merely delusional) and get people to believe you.

Sorry Dinosaur but you keep rehashing the same old arguments and I am not one to beat myself against a wall.

Here's a site where the guy discusses many of the most recent findings: http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/

Upon looking at this further appears the guy is a physics teacher at a New Jersey college. Though a description of his site explains that his posts are only to September 2003 actually they run right up to last month. Do I detect some growing anger at the suppression?

Mr. Chips: It is easy to dismiss arguments against cold fusion without refuting them. Advocates of Cold Fusion seem more similar to religious types (faith based beliefs) than scientific types, a point of view common to many believers in off beat phenomena.

For whatever reason there are those who seem to have legitimate academic credentials that support Cold Fusion as a viable phenomena. These individuals are at odds with main stream scientific experts. I happen to go with the mainstream, while you are willing to accept the views advocated by the heretics.

Posting citations in this context does not convince anybody, although it should be noted that the burden of proof is always on the shoulders of those who disagree with the establishment. I have yet to see that burden of proof fulfilled.

If we do not want to put this up to a vote of experts (which would be won by the establishment point of view), we must use our own critical judgment capabilities, which you believers seem unwilling to do. Logic, evidence, and reasonable arguments are on the side of the establishment as noted by me and others at this forum.

BTW: Using data found via your latest cited URL, I found the following.Muon-Catalyzed Fusion is a process that allows fusion at room temperatures and below. Although it does allow for fusion, it does not currently provide anywhere close to break-even energy. It is sometimes known as cold fusion, although this term is no longer often used as it can create confusion with other scientifically unestablished forms of room temperature fusion.It should be noted that MCF is fundamentally different from the Cold Fusion effect claimed by Pons & Fleichmann. It requires the use of muon particles which have an extremely short half life, and is not really equivalent to the fusion reaction in hydrogen bombs and stellar cores.

Note that experts doing legitimate research into Hot Fusion alternatives (EG: MCF) do not want to be associated with Cold Fusion.

You believers do not actually analyze the citations you provide. If it seems to support your untenable view of reality, you cite it and hope that if it does not really support your view, nobody will notice.

I wonder if any of the alleged experts who advocate Pons/Fleichmann style Cold Fusion have real knowledge of nuclear physics, in spite of their claimed credentials. I assume you know that Pons & Fleichmann were chemists, not physicists. I am sure that nobody posting at this forum in favor of Cold Fusion has more knowledge of the subject than I do, and I do not claim to be an expert.

BTW: I did take some pertinent physics courses and have done a lot of reading on the subject.

Are you really that small a guy? There is no reasoning with you. I offer information and my personal assessment according to my limited perspective and all you are capable of using are vitriolic ad hominem attacks and straw man obfuscations. You might convince the most barbaric out there but to those with a bit of reasoning ability, you are being quite pathetic.

Professor George H. Miley is a heretic? You know appears to me that those who claim that people who do not agree with their ideology, who are true believers themselves, beyond resaon or rationality, are the quickest to categorize others as heretics, such tiny little insufferable pathetic sheep.

Keep it up, Dino ole buddy, love this thread to float where it gets some exposure.

Open eyes folks, look at the evidence yourself. That is all I'm asking. Something is definitely amiss in the land o' plenty.

Collaborative Energy Research Group

Seems to be a recent site. I entered via google to the following page listing patents over the last decade and more, granted for LENR related processes. I thought the patent office wasn't granting any thing associated with cold fusion but I guess I was misinformed. BTW, LENR stands for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

http://www.cerg.org/research/patents/index.html

Mr. Chips:I find your following remarks amusing.Are you really that small a guy? . . . .all you are capable of using are vitriolic ad hominem attacks[b] . . . .]/b]you might convince the most barbaric out there but to those with a bit of reasoning ability, you are being quite pathetic[b] . . . .]/b]such tiny little insufferable pathetic sheep.Perhaps you should describe what an ad hominem attack is. I thought it referred to making nasty remarks about your opponent in a debate instead of presenting valid arguments. Surely it does not mean that to the one who posted the above.

BTW: Some who used to post here (and perhaps still do) have started a new forum for people with more expertise than you or I possess. It might be interesting for you to post some views on cold fusion at that forum.http://www.advancedphysics.org/index2.phpGive it a try and let me know if you do. I would like to see their reaction to cold fusion.

For the record, I really am surprised that Cold Fusion is allowed here instead of in the pseudo science forum.

Relating to a recent post: Patent law is (or was) interesting. The granting of a patent implies nothing about the ability of a mechanism or a process to do what is claimed in the patent. The last time I had occasion to check into some of its provisions, the following was true.Except for perpetual motion devices, a working model is not required for any mechanism. The requirement for perpetual motion machine models was requested by the patent office because there were so many patents applied for and there were so many granted. The search and analysis for perpetual motion machines became very time consuming and annoying, mainly due to the number of patents granted to various methods. There is no requirement that a mechanism or process be workable or usable, only that it be a new idea. The lack of such a requirement is the reason there were so many patents granted for perpetual motion machines prior to the requirement for a working model.I doubt that patent law has changed, because it is difficult and expensive to verify that a mechanism or process work as described by a patent. In some cases, it might be unfair to have such a requirement since patents are often applied for in the early research phase in the development of new mechanisms/processes. If the inventor waits until he has achieved his goal, somebody might beat him to the patent office.

Why don't you post some real information rather than attempt to attack the integrity of me and only one other who posted here, who you call "similar to religious types (faith based beliefs)" or "believers in off beat phenomena."

When you do bring in some real information it is nothing concerned with refuting CF at all, just one reference to some second hand forum discussion where the guy is passing off an extreme statement without any supporting data or citations and then this more recent allusion to the muon catalyzed fusion. Why don't you post an URL for the findings of the commission founded by the first Bush president or how about that guy who attempted to repeat CETI's experiments or what about the fiasco with Bockris at Texas A & M or the MIT study?

Rather than bring in some real data you have chosen to make some vague and general denigrating remarks essentially about me and you don't have the wherewithal to bring in some real data that has been presented by some real people somewhere.

YES. I think you are exhibiting very small intellectual ability. We have never been in a debate here. You haven't attempted to bring any valid arguments to the discussion and instead have attacked the character of the posters here. Seems to me you are just getting smaller with every piece of garbage you vomit into this thread. Basically, all you have been able to muster is the ad hominem attacks and the straw man diversions.

From Ultralingua.NET:
1. pathetic [adj.] 1. Inspiring mixed contempt and pity; "their efforts were pathetic"; SYN. pitiable, pitiful. 2. Inspiring scornful pity- Dashiell Hammett; SYN. ridiculous, silly. ETYM: Latin patheticus, Greek, from pathein to suffer: cf. French pathétique. Related to Pathos.

I do appreciate the stuff on patents. Heck, bang away long enough and you're liable to come up with something worth while. I did find the list of patents interesting as many are claiming that Bush's commission basically caused the patent office to refuse granting any concerned with CF phenomenon. I also recognize many of the names associated with the patents such as Miley and Bockris.

Did you look at that other forum? It is expressly for current physics students. Still, the founder mentions this place pronouncedly, taking much from here for its guidance so I think this place is sufficient though others may come up.

I found the following 2000 paper by Miley to be quite interesting. Did you know that Edward Teller thought that CF might be real and actually offered an explanation of how it might occur?
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHsomeperson.pdf

I edited this to take out personal contact information for Professor Miley and my reasons can be seen in his paper I link to above. I also included my quick assesment of the forum you list, Dino.

My background in nuclear physics is minimal, but I will try to present some cogent arguments against Cold Fusion, with a little help from sources on the Web. I have tried to avoid this approach because my knowledge of nuclear physics is not really sufficient to do a good job.

First, I want to point out that Teller was joking when he seemed to support Cold Fusion. Following paraphrased from an article cited by Mr. Chips.He (Teller) speculated that a meshuganon particle might exist and be responsible for Cold Fusion.While I am a goy, I have many Jewish fiends who have enhanced my vocabulary. Meshuga (there are spelling variations) is used in contexts like the following. Don’t take his meshuga advice about women: You will never get a second date. If you invest in his meshuga scheme, you will have financial souris (trouble). Only a meshuga would go canoeing if he did not know how to swim.LOL at those who think Teller supports Cold Fusion. I wonder how many goyim (plural of goy) failed to realize that Teller was joking.

Next, some not kind remarks about Hot Fusion.

I sympathize with those who view the Hot Fusion researchers as part of a conspiracy. I think the conspiracy started long before the Pons/Fleichmann Cold Fusion experiments. It seems to me to be a way for researchers to have high paying jobs with little hope of success before they retire. As far as I know, many of those who disparage Cold Fusion are not Hot Fusion researchers nor do they work at an institution which acquires Hot Fusion funding.

I am not an advocate of Hot Fusion research. From its inception to today, it has seemed to me like an unobtainable goal in the absence of some great leaping advance in nuclear technology. It is incredibly expensive for little hope of gain. The original idea was to contain plasma in a magnetic bottle, since no material container can withstand temperatures in the millions of degrees. Intuitively this seems like trying to balance a needle on its point, theoretically possible in a vacuum, but not likely to be done in practice. The more recent laser implosion techniques not requiring containment of the plasma seem a little more feasible, but for huge energy production, all the apparatus surrounding the reaction seems to get in the way of transforming/transporting the energy for useful purposes. Furthermore, in the absence of a containment mechanism, the process must function with repeated heating of small amounts of fusion fuel, and be unlikely to result in efficiency.

In 40-50 years, Hot fusion has yet to show better than a million to one energy input to output ratio.

Throughout this post, I have attempted to always refer to Pons/Fleichmann Cold Fusion rather than merely Cold Fusion. A bit of research has turned up some Cold Fusion experiments using nuclear effects rather than chemical & electrolysis effects. I do not wish to disparage those Cold Fusion claims. Pons & Fleichmann (and those who believe in them) claim that nuclear fusion occurs as a result of their experiment. It is the claim for nuclear fusion that is not accepted by mainstream physicists. The claims about excess heat and other experimental results might be valid. Do such results (if valid) indicate nuclear fusion? I and others think not.

BTW: You have made some insulting remarks suggesting that I know little about physics (partially true), and stating that I have presented no valid arguments against Cold Fusion. I have yet to see a valid argument in its favor. I have seen anecdotes. I have seen references to various experimental results, claiming excess heat, transmutation products, and I do not remember what else. I have yet to see you do more than cite Cold Fusion experts and talk about a conspiracy. In this context, I never really tried to present arguments based on the principles of physics. I talked against the concept of a conspiracy, questioned the worthiness of the cited researchers, and cited a few mainstream experts. This seemed to me to be consistent with other posts to this and another Cold Fusion thread at this forum.

Now, some thoughts relating to the physics of fusion.

The repulsive electromagnetic force between protons must be overcome in order for two hydrogen nuclei to fuse. An understanding of the magnitude of the repulsive electromagnetic force must be obtained before a person can appreciate how difficult it is to fuse nuclei and to thereby understand why main stream physicists do not accept the Pons/Fleichmann Cold Fusion claims.

The ratio of the electromagnetic repulsion between two protons to the gravitational attraction between them is 10³⁶ While gravitational effects have nothing to do with nuclear fusion, the ratio is mentioned to convey an appreciation for the magnitude of the repulsive forces. Note that inertial mass and gravitational mass are essentially equivalent, so it is reasonable to use consideration of the ratio as a way to assess the magnitude of the electromagnetic force compared to particle momentum. An appreciation of the magnitude of the repulsive force is required to understand what is required for nuclear fusion. A number like 10³⁶ is not easy to comprehend.

The following site has an interesting analysis of electromagnetic repulsion, which might provide some intuition relating to the magnitude of the electromagnet repulsion.http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Myths/DS_Myths_2.htmlThe author is analyzing the relative strength of electromagnetic and gravitational forces. The context is a discussion of a myth about the possibility of destroying the Earth using electromagnetic effects (The author does not believe the myth). One of his conclusions is as follows.That works out to roughly 1 electron for every 3.7 billion tons of the Earth's mass. Krauss estimated the figure at 1 electron for every 5 billion tons, which means that my electron count is roughly 35% larger than his estimate. However, my figures are based on a "point charge" idealization in which all of the negative charge is located at the centre of the planet, while his figures are probably based on a uniform distribution throughout the planet. In any case, the numbers are close enough that I can confidently state that he must have used reasoning similar to mine.The article has an easy to understand analysis leading to the above result.

Note that the above is discussing electromagnetic forces compared to gravitational forces in the context of Earthly dimensions. Electromagnetic repulsion is an inverse square law force. In the context of fusing nuclei, the distances are measured in angstroms not thousands of miles. The electromagnetic force of one electron being equivalent to billions of tons of gravitational mass does not begin to indicate the repulsive force between two protons. It gives you great respect for the strong nuclear force which is capable of fighting the repulsion.

High particle velocity and/or incredible pressure is required to overcome the repulsive force. Both high particle velocity (as measured by temperature) and incredible pressures are attained in stellar cores and in fusion bombs. Particle accelerators obtain high (even relativistic) velocities without high temperatures, and can cause fusion events, although this is not a typical accelerator experiment.

The Pons/Fleichmann advocates provide no description of a process capable of overcoming this repulsive force. There is no high pressure and no evidence or reason to believe that there is high particle velocity. There is no reason to suppose that there is any unknown effect capable of overcoming the repulsion.

If the repulsive force were overcome in the Pons/Fleichmann apparatus, it would seem to me to imply that some very well established principles of Quantum and Nuclear physics are so wrong that we should not believe in many well known repeatable experiments. The last statement is pure conjecture on my part. I do not know enough to try to support that claim, but I suspect that it is a valid statement. For example, if fusion were possible in the Pons/Fleichmann experiment, I would expect the sun to burn out in thousands or millions of years instead of its lasting billions of years. I would expect a hydrogen bomb to merely require conventional explosives as a trigger instead of requiring a fission bomb.

Bombs attain the temperatures and pressures by a fission explosion inside a casing strong enough to withstand the temperature/pressure extremes for a fraction of a second, simulating the temperature/pressure conditions in stellar cores. Hot fusion uses lasers to create high temperatures. What effect is used in the Pons?Fleichman experiments?

The only suggested mechanism I can imagine it quantum tunneling. This phenomenon results in particles (usually electrons) getting past a barrier without having enough energy to do so. I have heard it described by an analogy involving a marble moving in the bottom of a bowl. The marble oscillates, never with enough velocity to get out of the bowl. All at once, it is outside, but you never see it make the transition.

Tunneling is a probabilistic phenomenon. In the bowl analogy, the higher the bowl, the lower the probability of a tunneling event. Also, the slower the particle, the lower the probability. When dealing with huge numbers of particles, even a very low tunneling probability results in a few events. With the barrier presented by electromagnetic repulsion and the low particle energies involved in the Pons/Fleichmann experiment, a tunneling event might be expected once in many (perhaps millions) of years. The effects of quantum tunneling (if present) would not be measurable using current technology, although Pons/Fleichmann might be quasi-vindicated if there is a quantum leap in measuring technology.

BTW: The fission reaction triggering a fusion bomb is triggered by conventional explosives which compress a spongy mass of fissionable material. As a spongy mass, the ratio of surface area (measure of escape probability for particles) to the mass is very high, but when compressed the same mass (due to the smaller surface area) becomes critical and the fission chain reaction starts.

As mentioned in a previous post, quoting expert opinion does not seem to be productive. You accuse mainstream experts of being part of a Hot Fusion conspiracy to suppress cold Fusion. I have difficult assessing the motives of the Cold Fusion backers, but do not accept their opinion. I wonder if they really are knowledgeable physicists. It is time consuming to actually verify credentials. I wonder if they had credentials in the past and have lost touch with modern physics and/or reality. I wonder if they are charlatans making money off believers in conspiracies. For example, the authors of The Jupiter Effect were credible astronomers who published a book about nonsense. Perhaps the Cold Fusion experts have found a way to make money peddling a different kind of nonsense.

My searches have turned up many advocates of Cold Fusion, many articles on Hot Fusion, but no critiques of Cold Fusion by mainstream experts. I could only find a few disparaging remarks in the context of discussions of other topics, indicating that mainstream physicists just do not seem to take cold fusion seriously. Note the site mentioned in a previous post by me relating to a discussion of Quantum Computing, in which a researcher dismisses the Pons/Fleichmann Cold Fusion claims with no supporting comments.

Several sites with articles about Muon-Catalyzed Fusion surprised me. It seems to be a cold fusion process which is feasible and apparently has been demonstrated. With my meager knowledge of nuclear physics, this process did not seem possible. This process uses Muons (particles with about 200 times the mass of the electron) in place of electrons in a pseudo-hydrogen atom. When two Muon/hydogen atoms form a hydrogen molecule, the hydrogen nuclei are bound more tightly than in a normal hydrogen molecule. The researchers do not make great claims for the process.The goal of clean, inexpensive energy from this source may be far in the future if ever attained, so don't look for portable MCF generators on the market any time soon.It takes a lot of energy to create muons in a particle accelerator. Negatively charged muons have a half life of about 2 microseconds. There was an article mentioning the possibility of using MCF in conjunction with hot fusion, in hopes of a more promising process than Hot Fusion. It should be noted that the MCF researchers avoid using the term Cold Fusion due to their belief that the Pons/Fleichmann Cold Fusion claims are erroneous.

Note that MCF is a nuclear process rather than an electrochemical process as is the case with the Pons/Fleichmann experiment.

The following site has a satirical article about fusion at room temperature using charge mirrors to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion. It appears to be written by somebody with a knowledge of the format of serious research papers, and is suggestive of the attitude of mainstream physicists. http://www.kumonweb.com/ron/pro/software/ieee/ultra-example.pdf

That use of the word "Meshuganon" is interesting but I don't believe you are correct that Teller retained a discouraging opinion of CF (though apparently he originally had a negative view). That statement using that term is attributed to him at a meeting close to Pon's and Fleischman's original unplanned leak, 1991 I believe. The 1999 book Voodoo Science says that Teller said that CF "sounds right" ( http://www.physics.sunysb.edu/~allen/313/poetry.html ). Look around on the web and you find other data that Teller did appear to find some credibility to the phenomenon.

The following is at http://www.holysmoke.org/wb/wb0053.htm
``Numerous interesting and partially contradictory results on cold fusion are in disagreement with the solidly established nuclear theory of fusion.'' Teller proposed that ``there is a possibility to reconcile the results with the theory,'' if, perhaps, ``a catalytic transfer of neutrons might be possible. It is conceivable that the catalyst could be an as-yet-undiscovered neutral particle.'' Teller proposed experiments be done with Uranium-235 as a neutron acceptor, and that scientists might also try to replace deuteron in its role as neutron donor by Beryllium nuclei, in future research. ``It is recommended in recognition of the high-class work that yielded surprising results, that the effort be supported in order to obtain clarification, whether the results are due to sophisticated difficulties in the experiments, or whether a new phenomenon is involved.''
The following is at http://www.shareintl.org/archives/Science-tech/sci_coldnuc-fusion.htm
"This morning [before the news conference] my opinion was that [cold fusion] could never happen. And I am extremely happy now because I see a very good chance I was completely wrong."
Edward Teller, the ‘father of the hydrogen bomb’ in the Salt Lake City Tribune
The following is from http://www.bluegrass-gb.freeserve.co.uk/teller/teller.htm . It would be interesting to get the content of his speech at this year 2000 event:
"Edward Teller was the Principal Speaker at the opening ceremony and gave a very interesting talk on Cold Fusion..."
The following is at http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue44/iccf9.html
"Dr. Edward Teller's associate, Dr. Lowell Wood of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (a nuclear weapons research facility), attended both ICCF7 and ICCF8. At the latter conference, Dr. Wood seemed impressed with the quality of papers and appeared convinced of the reality of the phenomenon."

Dinosaur: "It is the claim for nuclear fusion that is not accepted by mainstream physicists. The claims about excess heat and other experimental results might be valid."

Don't have to look far to find that some "main stream" physicists accept the claim of the cold fusion phenomenon with the specific word "fusion" on the basis of their own experiments and their study of other well presented and documented experimentation. That has been the basic gist of most of the URLs in this thread. Denounce them all generally if you will but I think an instance by instance refuttal is more in keeping with a scientific method.

Dinosaur: "You have made some insulting remarks suggesting that I know little about physics."

Oh? Please inform me of these. I do not recall making any such insulting remarks. I did comment about your intellect as being small and I stand by that as long as you could not bring some real data to this discussion and continued to make derogatory remarks about myself and anyone else who may post any data in support of the CF hypothesis. Maybe, just maybe, you are now attempting to step out of your cheap shot mode and I do welcome this and hope you can keep it up. It is in such dialogue that much gets learned. For example, without this I would not have come across the following which I find to be extremely interesting and which I will pursue further with the thought that Louis Kervran's work may be corroborated. I don't think Kervran's work has gotten a fair appraisal and see many who denounce it with no countering scientific evidence while Kervran offered many real experimental results that have been duplicated by many. http://www.lowenergytransmutations.org/index.html

Dinosaur: "I have yet to see a valid argument in its favor."

Oh well. Seems to me if you are looking at some of the data presented here and in the other threads and you can not go and verify that the data is out there and not just a fabrication of my imagination then you are likely to have some vested interests in the status quo that give you very little recourse but to remain close minded no matter how much contrary evidence mounts.

Dinosaur: "I have yet to see you do more than cite Cold Fusion experts and talk about a conspiracy. In this context, I never really tried to present arguments based on the principles of physics. I talked against the concept of a conspiracy, questioned the worthiness of the cited researchers, and cited a few mainstream experts."

Please refresh my memory, who are the few mainstream experts you have cited? I recall only one and he offered no citations for his extreme statement. Your speaking against the concept of a conspiracy opened you up to the claim that you are promulgating that there are a number of conspiracies by hundreds of researchers all over the globe who are claiming to see evidence of cold fusion in the specific Pons/Fleischman and other electrolytic cells. You have offered little explanation as to why these conspiracies exist, that the general argument that a conspiracy is preposterous in such a potentially important field is only magnitudes more applicable at negating your argument in this vein. Do you honestly find multiple conspiracies by well established, long trusted, well credentialed researchers to be more plausible?

Dinosaur: "The Pons/Fleichmann advocates provide no description of a process capable of overcoming this repulsive force. There is no high pressure and no evidence or reason to believe that there is high particle velocity. There is no reason to suppose that there is any unknown effect capable of overcoming the repulsion."

Not true. This reminds me of an interview on "framing" that was given publicity lately to describe the methodology of the control of the media that results in conservative bias. What if the electromagnetic repulsion theory was not all too correct or precise? Much theory is being advanced to explain the experimentally observed phenomenon of cold fusion. I like the statement at http://www.lowenergytransmutations.org/iccf3_experimental.htm which is "Now, in our opinion, experiment comes first and theory second."

I am seeing some real growth in this last post of yours. Muon catalyzed fusion seems to throw a monkey wrench in the "theory denotes experimental results" approach. I got into a discussion with a guy once concerning a common (relatively) cold transmutation that appears to endanger welders (I worked as a welder for many years) that is, carbon monoxide poisoning in the presence of no combustion. You can be welding steel on girders on the tenth floor of the infrastructure of a sky scraper and if the air is still enough, die from carbon monoxide poisoning though nothing is burning. What is the major component of air? Look on either side of that element in the periodic table. Kevran detailed the equations that explain the transmutation. The guy I was discussing this with claimed that the CO was coming from the burning of carbon dioxide, imagine that, burning carbon dioxide. We better scrap all those fire extinguishers.

I think I'll just avoid looking at that last URL you put up there for now. Later.

edited for spelling correction

It has been quite a while since I did a search for web sites on Louis Kervran. Here's one with a list of links to others. http://www.lasarcyk.de/kervran/index.htm Is this an URL about CF? Well, maybe not but it appears to be about cold transmutations whether fusion or fision.

BTW, here is the first site I've come accross that purports to offer evidence that Kervran was mistaken or wrong. http://www.luigigarlaschelli.it/Altrepubblicazioni/KERVRAN.htm

They tried to replicate the experiment that produced cold fusion. They tried to replicate the experiment at M.I. T. and guess what, they couldn't get it to work. So what more proof do you need to understand that it won't work the way those who say they did it describe.

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf

The above report, addresses the MIT fraud. If you get a chance to see the video reviewed at http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30014 you can see for yourself how the MIT experimental results were doctored to hide the positive evidence of cold fusion.

This site is a nice place to start, in general, with links to introductory expositions on its home page. The internal page below is about some recent work at Mitsubishi in Japan reported at the ICCF-10. Leave it to the Japanese to go where US companies fear to tread...

http://www.coldfusioninfo.com/ICCF10/ICCF10NewsFlashTalbotChubb.htm

Edited to add the following: the link to the original paper reporting this work in the Japanese Journal is faulty at the web site above. I found it at http://jjap.ipap.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle?magazine=JJAP&volume=41&number=7R&page=4642-4650

This physics teacher is making some real efforts to keep up with the latest research and post them on his site. He also seems to invite people to email him with comments or questions. I've posted his URL here before but it is worth noting that he continually updates as well as searches for this stuff so those who may want to learn of the latest CF research would do well to bookmark his site. He also brings up some tantalizing questions about the whole "conspiracy" verses multiple "conspiracies" fiasco. Here's a recent page he submitted that is interesting to me as other transmutations may actually be significant contributors to the excess heat according to a UCB researcher:

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/126passell.html

The Japanese Cold Fusion Society held a conference this last December. You can see abstracts and what apears to be the complete text of "Unknown Nuclear effects and Abnormal Isotopic Compositions" by Dr. Herve Bottoller-Curlet, presented at a symposium held in Novermber by the foundation Louis de Broglie, Paris, which if I recall correctly was an institution that Louis Kervran worked with for many years. Interesting stuff...
http://www.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/nuc/03/nuc03web/JCF/file/jcf5abstract.pdf

Though I've posted the URL of the JCF society previously, they have been busy cleaning up their site and adding more information and it is worth another look see if you haven't been by lately: http://www.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/nuc/03/nuc03web/JCF/indexe.html

There have been numerous claims that Teller considered cold fusion a possibility. Examine some of these claims from URL's mentioned in this thread. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MileyGHsomeperson.pdfThis site has the following remark from about 1991, not long after the Pons/Fleischmann announcement.Instead of ruling CF out due to lack of theoretical explanation, he (Teller) suggested that a new particle dubbed meshuganon would be needed (and might actually exist) to explain the observations reported by Pons and Fleischmann. Those familiar with Yiddish know that meshuga (there are various spellings) means crazy. Teller was joking.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/guides/debate/chats/teller/ The above site references a 1999 interview.Chat Participant: Mr. Teller, do you feel power from fusion is an obtainable goal in the next decade or two? Also, do you believe that a process such as "cold fusion" is possible?

Edward Teller: I believe that cold fusion is not apt to be practicable. I think fusion is possible, but believe it is almost certainly too expensive, too difficult. Fission and nuclear reactors, properly handled, can remain safe. And I believe that is a much more possible and necessary way to provide access to world energy.Note that the main thrust of the question related to obtaining power from hot fusion in the near future. http://www.physics.sunysb.edu/~allen/313/poetry.htmlThe above site includes the following.Edward Teller, on the other hand, is reported to have said that cold fusion "sounds right." (R. Park, Voodoo Science, p.26.) Teller has been known for overly optimistic statements in the past (William Broad, Teller's War, Simon and Schuster, 1992).Unfortunately the above is not a direct quote. Without the book itself, neither the context nor the actual statement by Teller is available.

Teller was born in 1908. The context of the meshuganon particle remark was a conference on cold fusion in direct response to a question about cold fusion. It was made a year or two after the original Pons/Fleishmann announcement. At that time Teller was about 81-82 years old. The other remarks attributed to him were made when he was about 91 and not in the context of a direct question about cold fusion. Considering his age and the contexts, I consider the earlier statment to a more reliable indicator of his attitude toward cold fusion.

In view of the above, I consider citing Teller as endorsing cold fusion to be erroneous (due to improper research or misinterpretation of his remarks) at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. If you wish to continue citing him, perhaps you could provided some direct quotes which can be verified as attributed to him.

BTW: I am not a hot fusion fan, nor was Teller (see above). It is interesting that Teller endorses fission over fusion for near future power generation, although he was an important (the most important?) developer of fusion bombs.

Teller (and I) agree with critics of hot fusion. There is no evidence that it will be a practical source of power in the next 10-20 years, and seems to be a waste of funds in the absence of some major leap in technology. There are many reasons to believe that the funds for hot fusion would be better spent on other research efforts. It is my understanding that the power input to output ratio for hot fusion is about one million to one, not very promising.

Sounds cool by me. I'm attempting to find the transcript or even a recording of his year 2000 speech as referenced above (UC Davis Oct. 2000). It would be interesting to see what some of his last thoughts on the matter were. Apparently he had his right hand man attempt some experimentation that they ceased when the guy had a minor mishap and blew up his apparatus.

This is the first I've heard of an annual conference in Italy going on now for five years:

http://www.iscmns.org/meetings/Asti/asti.htm

The hosting site is a relatively new online electronic journal that seems to be updating its pages pretty quickly and should come to report more shortly.

I got into a discussion with a guy once concerning a common (relatively) cold transmutation that appears to endanger welders (I worked as a welder for many years) that is, carbon monoxide poisoning in the presence of no combustion. You can be welding steel on girders on the tenth floor of the infrastructure of a sky scraper and if the air is still enough, die from carbon monoxide poisoning though nothing is burning. What is the major component of air? Look on either side of that element in the periodic table. Kevran detailed the equations that explain the transmutation..

What welding process?
Does it also occur when welding materials that don't contain carbon?

Simple arc welding I believe is what Kervran was considering. There is some carbon in steel as well as in the flux but the steel is not burned and the flux is of little quantity (though that might explain it). The theory of Kervran's is that Nitrogen gas undergoes a transmutaion to CO, same atomic weight.

Kervran's work does appear interesting. I believe I'll have to read it for myself.
Have you read any books or papers that are critical of Kervran's work?

I was just looking around the other day and found a lengthy treatise by an Earl Staelin that was basically accepting Kervran's work, which was extensive and apparently quite meticulous: http://www.arach.net.au/~brooks/thoth/thoth-vi-6.html . I have a copy of Kervran's book, Biological Transmutations, which I got perhaps as long ago as 30 years.

As far as critical data, I put an URL in here above in a previous post, http://www.luigigarlaschelli.it/Altrepubblicazioni/KERVRAN.htm , that purports to disprove Kervran's hypothesis at least for their study of oat seedlings. Seems those who gave the Ig Nobel to Kervran did so without citing any contrary evidence.

I would like to find some more experiments with an eye to exploring the worthiness of Kervran's theories and would welcome any more other than the one I list above. Many appear to claim to have proved his theories with their own experimentation. The following web site lists a number of URLs: http://www.lasarcyk.de/kervran/reaction.htm

Here are a couple more sites, one con and one pro regarding what is called by some "the Kervran effect":

http://www.shef.ac.uk/pr/press_releases/pr03/1may03.html

http://www.papimi.gr/eqoflif.htm

The best site for cold fusion news and research reports. They report that as of Feb 5, they have now double the amount of traffic as in October of last year, more than 400,000 hits per month.

The following is my favorite page on the LENR-CANR.org web site that I make sure to check in on at least once a week. Hard to believe that any one could deny the existence of the phenomenon with all of this hard core data from established researchers and companies of long respect and high reputation.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/Features.htm

Looks like Professor George Miley (winner of the Edward Teller award, past editor of Fusion Technology magazine, IEEE fusion technology lead writer) has a new site cooking. Maybe its just an old site that has yet to be purged? I tried to look at the source of it to see if any date might be in there but was unable to do so. Any body know why? Oh, there's a couple of other researchers named on the site as well. Apparently it is housed on University of Illinois servers.

http://www.ne.uiuc.edu/lenr/#_top

Looks like the ISCMNS is getting its stuff together. Here's their news page. Appears that Italy is becoming a hot spot for cold fusion research. The next Asti workshop is later this month:

http://www.iscmns.org/news.htm

Mr. Chips: Opinion first and some supporting theory later. I wonder if any of you believers in Cold Fusion know enough to understand the later comments. My view is essentially the following.Regardless of the results of Cold Fusion experiments, there is no justification for the conclusion that nuclear fusion is taking place. Experimenters who claim that fusion is occurring are either deluded or are deliberate charlatans.Note that I am agnostic about various claims for anomalous results and unexplained energy production, although fraud or incompetence is always a possibility. I am not claiming that the experimenters are charlatans or fools in the absence of claims for Cold Fusion.

Do you believers have any credible supporting theory?

Saying experiment first and theory later sounds like a valid point of view. However, without some supporting theory, there is little motivation for believing the results of experiments. As far as I have been able to determine, there is no supporting theory, while there is very well established theory (with supporting evidence) indicating that Cold Fusion is nonsense (See below).

I assume that mainstream physicists are ignoring cold fusion due to contempt, not due to some conspiracy hatched by the hot fusion researchers. Except for remarks made while discussing other subjects, I can find nothing by mainstream physicists arguing against cold fusion. The few physicists I know personally merely refer to its having been discredited many years ago, but do not know enough about nuclear physics to present any cogent arguments.

I have read a lot of the articles cited at this thread. It astonishes me that there are so many claims about successful experiments by people who seem to have valid scientific backgrounds. The results reported have made make me wonder about the claimed credentials. How do I know that Professor X is a respected nuclear physicist at University Y?

Electromagnetic effects are well known and underlie a vast number of devices which have worked as expected for many decades. Believers in Cold Fusion have no concept of the strength of magnetic repulsion and its effects on charged particles moving at low speeds and under ordinary pressure/density conditions. Note that the main reason for high temperature is to obtain high speed particles. Stellar interiors provide incredible densities and extremely high speed particles.

One charged particle (electron or proton) has an electromagnetic force equivalent to the gravitational effect of billions of tons of mass. Electromagnetic repulsion is an inverse square law, making it an awesome force when the distance is less than the radius of an atom or molecule, which distance is a few orders of magnitude greater that the radius of a nucleus. The fusion of two hydrogen nuclei (or less credible, carbon & silicon nuclei to produce calcium) under ordinary pressure and temperature conditions is an absurd concept in view of the strength of electromagnetic repulsion. There is no experimental evidence or theory to support the notion that the awesome electromagnetic force is somehow nullified, allowing cold fusion to occur.

The strength of electromagnetic repulsion is the reason why Hydrogen₁ & Helium₃ are the only isotopes with more than half the nucleus consisting of protons. Only some of the lighter elements have stable nuclei with a half & half mix of neutrons and protons. Stable or not, all of the elements beyond about atomic number 21 have more neutrons than protons in the nucleus. Even the strong nuclear force cannot fight the electromagnetic force of 2 or more protons without some neutrons to help out somehow (probably by providing additional nuclear binding energy).

The above 3 paragraphs are based on very sound principles of physics supported by experimental evidence. Only Muon-Catalyzed Fusion seems like a plausible type of cold Fusion. This is a nuclear process, not a chemical one. Those doing MCF research avoid the term Cold Fusion to avoid association with a discredited concept. Another possibility is some probabilistic quantum tunneling process, providing one fusion event per second for every 10²³ nuclei, hardly enough to produce measurable energy.

I dismiss any claims for fusion reactions such as Carbon + Silicon resulting in Calcium. The atomic numbers and atomic weights of the three elements are consistent with the alleged fusion. (Did any of you believers check this detail? I doubt it). However, atomic nuclei have special arrangements of the protons and neutrons. Even hot fusion in a stellar interior would not be expected to cause such fusion. The nuclear particles in the carbon and calcium would have to be taken apart and reassembled to create the calcium. Such a fusion reaction would be analogous to smashing a lead sphere and a gold sphere together and getting a lead/gold alloy in the shape of a sphere with an even distribution of lead and gold throughout the volume. The hot fusion creation of heavier elements in stellar interiors does not add more than a few protons to a nucleus in a single fusion process.

Furthermore, I would expect all sorts of anomalous effects if cold fusion were possible. Cold Fusion implies that fusion is easily triggered. If that were the case, it seems likely that the sun and other stars would have burnt out long ago instead of shining for billions of years. I would also expect noticeable and strange quantum tunneling or other effects in various electromagnetic devices if cold fusion were a valid concept.

The 2-3 paragraphs immediately above are speculation on my part. They are based on some valid concepts relating to nuclear physics.

The most interesting articles are those which describe anomalous energy output without making strong (or any) claims for nuclear fusion. It does not seem reasonable to dismiss these experiments without a detailed investigation, and an attempt to duplicate the results if the researchers check out as competent physicists. If these experimenters have integrity and competence, it strongly suggests some process currently outside of mainstream physics. Such experiments do not imply cold fusion.

As mentioned above, I do not believe any experiments claiming to have direct evidence of cold fusion.

Those articles harping at length about a conspiracy to suppress cold fusion cannot be taken seriously, at least not by me. Claims of conspiracy by some establishment is one of the clues often used to identify a quack, a charlatan, or one influenced by such people. Once a genii or scientific truth is let out of the bottle, you cannot put it back in. Einstein and many others could not save classical physics from the onslaught of Quantum Theory.

The lack of mainstream acceptance for Cold Fusion after about 15 years should give you believers a strong clue. Note that Einstein was considered crazy for his early views on quantized energy, which later were accepted. It only took a year or two for this heresy to be accepted by the establishment. It is ironic that Einstein was the first to suggest quantized energy and later argued against some aspects of the Quantum theory suggested by his early insight.

It is not easy to validate the credentials of lessor known experimenters. When somebody claims that there was an article on some subject in the June 1997 issue of a reputable journal, it would be difficult for me to verify that such an article was written. Furthermore, aside from certain well known journals, I have no idea of which are reliable. Similarly for claims that some well known person made a remark or wrote an article. If I read an internet version of the article and it seems reasonable (or incomprehensible) to me, I assume that it is a valid article, and accept whatever claims I understand. If I thought I understood the article, but it seemed unreasonable I assume that the citation is invalid and the article was never published in the reputable journal nor written by the credible scientist.

If I read an internet article attributed to professor Q. P. Whimsy from Stanford University physics department, I similarly judge validity based on its being either incomprehensible or reasonable. If it seems understandable and unreasonable, I assume that Professor Whimsy is not or should not be a professor at Stanford. Unlike an article in a reputable journal or authored by a known genius, I have less confidence in an article by a professor at a major university. This is due to the tenure concept and to the existence of departments of parapsychology.

The articles with strong claims for fusion (especially Si + C resulting in Ca) are just not believable. They are not believable enough for me to check that cited authors really are researchers at the institution mentioned. Apparently, they are not believable enough for mainstream physicists to spend time and resources trying to duplicate the Cold Fusion experiments.

If would be helpful if some theory supporting the claims for fusion were mentioned, but there seems to a lack of such information. The only theory that I could find in cited articles started with the following (paraphrased).Maxwell’s equations, e = mc², and Planck’s equation E = hn might not apply to low energy transmutations.The disregard (with no further explanation) of three major well supported equations resulted in my merely scanning the remainder of the remarks without analysis.

Hey, Dinosaur, thanks for keeping the thread alive!

Some of those scientists who seem obscure? Arthur C. Clarke, George Miley, John Bockris the list seems to be growing. Isn't it up to two Nobel prize winning physicists who have at least endorsed the possibility of cold fusion?

Here's some theorizing: from http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BassRWexperiment.pdf

ABSTRACT
Brightsen’s Nucleon Cluster Model (NCM) predicts that a relatively low-energy photon can stimulate a nuclear transmutation under certain specified conditions. Examination of an experiment by Lin & Bockris demonstrates that the transmutation of mercury-201 to gold-197 induced by a mere exothermic chemical reaction (burning gunpowder) is an actual concrete example of a novel process predicted by the NCM.

Here's some more theorizing from http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ChenStheapplica.pdf

The multiple-scattering theory is applied to the de Broglie wave of deuterons inside the palladium film. The formalism for band structure calculation and the reflection and transmission calculations for finite slices is presented. The latter is based on a double-layer scheme which obtains the reflection and transmission matrix elements for the multiplayer slice from those of a single layer. With a relative simple model for the potential of palladium crystal lattice, we calculate the band structures of probability wave of deuterons propagating in the palladium, as well as the transmission coefficients through finite periodic slices. Selective resonant tunneling theory is adopted when obtaining the scattering matrix T. Our calculations consist with experimental results which can not be explained by diffusion theory.

I just started scrolling through the papers at http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html Those two places were by those I scrolled from starting with the letter "A" to the letter "C." Try continuing on with the "D" starting author names. I consider it likely you will find a few more expositions of possible theory to explain the phenomenon. I'm coming accross some theorist authors for about 66% of the letters analyzed. Tell me your results for a couple letters if you could be so kind as to donate some of your efforts too, or somebody else. Scroll through the papers offered on www.lenr-canr.org by last name for all that are listed there with authors of names beginning with D, E and F? If somebody did that then we come to a set of papers on the theories behind cold fusion. Further analyze those and out of 66% of 26 or maybe 17 different papers by different authors you might find some that better explained the experimental observations.

Here is what I begin to understand so far. Certain Isotopes in metal or partially crystalline palladium and perhaps some other catalyzing agents are induced via electromagnetic pulses through electron pulse enhancing cluster tunnels to relative speeds by electromagnetic force to being capable of surpassing the electromagnetic barrier to fusion. The lattice of the catalyzing agent tunnels clusters or perhaps just single atoms of isotopes into collisions with itself at great speed and focused containment.

Cold Fusion at Purdue. 1 in a Trillion Odds it IS valid!!

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2004/040302.Taleyarkhan.fusion.html

Is that table-top device considered a cold fusion device Mac? I realize only neutron
bombardment is used to start the reaction, but the fusion that results is still hot
fusion, isn't it? I am not sure, as I know almost nothing about nuclear physics. I did
see this statement which seems to be a problem with all fusion projects so far:
"We are not yet at break-even," Taleyarkhan said. "That would be the ultimate. I don't know if it will ever happen, but we are hopeful that it will and don't see any clear reason why not. In the future we will attempt to scale up this system and see how far we can go."

2Inquisitive,

Yes it would be considered cold fusion. All fusion generates heat. that is the energy release but the difference in cold fusion and hot fusion is the conditions required to cause it. In this case the imposion does produce sufficient heat to cause fusion but the process is not hot plasma requiring exotic containment.

I realize the energy release from FUSION will generate heat. The implosion of the bubbles generated heat estimated at up to 10 million degrees Celsius and pressures
estimated at up to 1000 million atmospheres. That was what caused the fusion reaction, it was just produced by sonic waves and neutron bombardment instead
of plasma. Isn't that still fusion caused by heat and pressure?

2Inquisitive,

I agree with what you say but it is my opinion that this would generally still be considered cold fusion since it isn't derived by exciting the fuel into plasma.

This is just a guess. Anybodyelse have an opinion?

2 Inquisitive,

I stand corrected. From the scientist mouth.

************************************************** *

Dear Mr. McCoin:

Thank you for your kind words and information on your past. The terms "cold fusion" would be completely off-the-mark here. The liquid holding the collapsing vapor cavities remains around room temperature. However, as you have correctly pointed out, the collapsing vapor pockets reach conditions similar to the INTERIOR of stars (tens of millions of degrees temperature).

Sincerely, Rusi Taleyarkhan

************************************************** *

Thanks, Mac. I have just always thought of the process usually called "cold fusion"
as a chemically assisted nuclear reaction (CANR). I have doubts it is a true fusion
reaction, but something unexplained does seem to be happening. Dr. Taleyarkhan's
experiments DO seem to be a true fusion reaction, however. If his process can ever
produce a net gain in energy, which he thinks is possible, it could truly be revolutionary.

Sono-luminescence looks interesting. There seems to be some plausibility to the concept.

As I understand the article, the collapse of the bubble is 5 orders of magnitude (a factor of 100,000) in nanoseconds. It seems reasonable to think that such a rapid collapse could result in the high temperatures and pressures required to overcome electromagnetic repulsion. Here is a process with some potential validity. Even if turns out to be an impractical source of energy, it might very well result in fusion.

Note that Rusi Taleyarkhan (the researcher) does not claim cold fusion. He is claiming that temperatures beyond 1-10 million degrees are generated by the collapse. Such temperatures are known to be able to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion of positively charged nuclei.

It would be interesting to know if Rusi Taleyarkhan considers the possibility of carbon plus silicon fusing into calcium, which seem ridiculous even for hot fusion, but is a claim made by cold fusion experimenters.

It will also be interesting to see if others are able to verify the claims. Since there is some plausibility to the claims, I would expect others to try to replicate the experiments. Sono-luminescence does not seem silly enough to dismiss without committing resources to attempts to verify it. Cold fusion is not that reasonable.

Ah, Dinosaur, I went and looked for papers specifically concerning theory of the observed phenomenon. I just started scrolling through the papers at www.lenr-canr.org and picked out that which seemed to be repeated by most along with some of the other sites I've referred to in this thread. What of this electron cluster tunnelling hypothesis? Anybody?

March 25 there was an article in the New YorkTimes called "U.S. Will Give Cold Fusion Second Look, After 15 Years." Apparently the Dept. of Energy has agreed to put together another panel to review the claims of cold fusion. Fat chance, huh? Oh, here's a bit about that http://www.lenr-canr.org/Features.htm

Hi MacM The CF I am referring to in this thread is not sonofusion. Usually the form of CF addressed by this thread is seen within specific metal electrodes in solutions though if I understand correctly the process also appears in gas cells.

Here is a lot of information. Replace the number at the end up to 8 for notes on CF events from 1991 through 1998. http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/Brief_1991

Check it out. Do you think some guy in Denmark went bonkers and made it all up? Are the people named in these notes fiction or are they all conspiring to fool the public and each other? Or maybe when you begin to understand the common claims, often from highly regarded researchers, you have to come to the Occam razor that the existance of conspiracy to suppress this information is more likely than the idea of individuals from all over the globe attempting fraud by claiming the observation of CF.

Mr. Chips: Could you give a more specific URL for the following?What of this electron cluster tunnelling hypothesis? Anybody?It is frustrating to see an interesting concept cited and then have difficulty finding it. Somehow your citation led me to a lengthy correspondence between a Cold Fusion advocate and an editor of Scientific American.

Tunneling is an interesting possibility for Cold Fusion. From what I understand of the process, it is a probabilistic phenomenon. Quantum Theory predicts that there is some probability of a particle appearing in almost any position in spite of energy barriers. Due to the strength of electromagnetic repulsion, I would not expect a fusion event at low temperatures to happen more than one per day (this a is a wild guess on my part). I wonder if any mainstream physicists might hazard a guess about the frequency of Cold Fusion due to tunneling. I wonder if such an event has a nonzero probability.

BTW: I have yet to see any reasonable explanation of how Cold Fusion manages to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion between positive nuclei. I am sure that mainstream science is skeptical of Cold Fusion due to this formidable force.

Cold Fusion is about 15 years old, which is a long time to suppress a valid concept. Some incredible Quantum Theory concepts were accepted in far less time. It only took the mainstream about 1-2 years to switch from calling Albert a nut to accepting his views on quantized energy.

Whoa, now here is some fodder for those who really want to study this stuff. I am going to save all of these pages to my own archive. That last URL I gave, http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/Brief_1991 will give a page for each year from 1989 to 2003 with the appropriate placement of the year at the end of the string. Furthermore, besides these summarized notes of interest to CF researchers, there is also this series of pages, http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/Pub_1989 through http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/Pub_2003 a bibliography of what appears to be most everything published on CF during these years.

Oh, I entered "theory of cold fusion" into google and got a report by Julian Schwinger, a recently deceased Nobel prize winning physicist who conjectured as to what might explain the evidence as well as many pages of references. I do not think there is a paucity of theorizing as to the events.

Concerning the tunnelling stuff, I found that by just starting to browse through the papers at http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html You could try that if you'd like. Also a search with google using "tunnelling 'cold fusion'" brings up many results. Try concentrating on the name, Peter Hagelstein. Apparently he's been wrestling with finding a coherent theory to explain the experimental evidence for quite some time. He participated in a talk on a Canadian radio station who's audio is available at http://www.radio.cbc.ca/programs/quirks/archives/03-04/dec13.html .

BTW, papers from the last International Conference On Cold Fusion, last year, are available now at http://www.lenr-canr.org/iccf10/iccf10.htm just scroll down towards the bottom. I was hoping Peter Hagelstein's paper on theory would be there. Oh well, others discuss theory too including the very first paper in this list of some from last years conference.

Ah, Scott Chubbs, physicist with the Navy, seems to give a pretty good run down on existing theory at http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf starting on page 91 and lasting about 20 pages. There must be some unnumbered pages at the start because Adobe reader labels the first page of Chubb's paper on theory as 101.

Lots of news stories on DOE reviewing cold fusion again. There's even mention of another Nobel prize winning physicist vouching for it. Does that make three now?

http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/33299.html

Mr. Chips: You never seem to include any abstracts or quotes from the of the articles you cite. Do you actually read the material? If so, do you understand any of it? It is probably a waste of time to request that you provide a brief summary of what you think is being described in your citations. I have wasted a lot of time reading some of the articles cited, only to find little of merit. Lots of claims, but no supporting theory.

A while back you posted a URL and mentioned electron cluster tunneling. I wasted a lot of time trying to find the subject at the URL cited. You never responded to a request for more specific information. Recently you posted the following.Lots of news stories on DOE reviewing cold fusion again. There's even mention of another Nobel prize winning physicist vouching for it. Does that make three now? http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/33299.htmlChecked the above site, but did not see any mention of a Nobel prize winner vouching for cold fusion. It would save others some time if you provided a bit more information when you make such a citation. Perhaps I missed something or perhaps the article referenced another site. It would help if you mentioned the name of the physicist and perhaps a short quote of his remarks. That would surely make it easier to check.

BTW: My impression of a DOE article is that some politicians have made noises and DOE has to pay attention to them. There was nothing in the article which seemed to support Cold Fusion.

Another of your citations that wasted a lot of my timeAh, Scott Chubbs, physicist with the Navy, seems to give a pretty good run down on existing theory at http://www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf starting on page 91 and lasting about 20 pages. There must be some unnumbered pages at the start because Adobe reader labels the first page of Chubb's paper on theory as 101 It was a lot of work reading the above. As far as I could tell, it does not really provide much theoretical support for cold Fusion. The following were perhaps the most cogent remarks.The important point is that because momentum is associated with wave-like behavior, it can change suddenly, in unexpected ways, on arbitrarily short time scales. These changes can result in instantaneous changes in which large amounts of momentum are shifted to many particles and vice versa. How or if this occurs is dictated by the dynamics of the many body systems.Not really a convincing argument in support of the phenomenon. Note the bolded (by me) disclaimer: He does not seem convinced by his own argument. The above does not explicitly mention the Uncertainty Principle but seems to be implying a similar concept. There is also mention of properties of atoms associated with Bose-Einstein condensates, which seems ridiculous to me in this context because none of the Cold Fusion experiments provide the conditions required for a Bose-Einstein condensate.

The above cited article seems to be describing many body situations, which are difficult (if not impossible) to analyze using current theory. Current theory dealing with two nuclear particles provides no support for Cold Fusion. I view this as an application of an old principle: If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bu**it.

I suppose you consider the above article as providing theoretical support for Cold Fusion. Might you be willing to provide a bit of discussion of why you think it supports Cold Fusion? I see no mention of a mechanism for overcoming electro magnetic repulsion, which is the main reason for disbelieving cold Fusion. Do you have any appreciation for the awesome strength of electromagnetic repulsion at distances less that an atomic radius? If so, I wonder how you can accept Cold Fusion.

BTW: Have you read any of the claims for successfully fusing Carbon and Silicon to produce Calcium? Some of the articles you have cited mention such experiments. Do you accept such claims as valid?

The more I read about Cold Fusion, the more it reminds me of the anecdotal evidence for alien abductions, the Bermuda Triangle, remote viewing, astral projection, et cetera. One anecdote does not prove anything and neither does 100 anecdotes.

I do not require a working Cold Fusion power plant to convince me. I merely want to see a article convincing enough to be published in the major journal of physics, whatever journal that is. I might be convinced by some reasonable supporting theory, but I will not waste any more of my time reading articles cited by you without a short abstract or some quotes.

Can you give an estimate of how long you will cling to your faith in Cold Fusion in the absence of any mainstream support for it? I expect you to still be a believer after another ten years with no acceptance from the mainstream. You should have given up by now. mainstream physicists and journal editors are neither fools nor charlatans. If cold Fusion had any validity, I would expect some mainstream support and acceptance of an article in a major journal in the past 15 years. Even though they considered Albert a nut, they accepted his paper on the Photo-electric effect and other subjects, finally admitting that he was right about quantized energy. It only took about 1-2 years for mainstream physicists to accept a view directly opposed to the classical view.

Dinosaur: "Checked the above site, but did not see any mention of a Nobel prize winner vouching for cold fusion."

From the URL http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/33299.html "Now, a number of prominent international researchers treat cold fusion seriously, including physics Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia."

I went to http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html and then searched for the term "tunneling" solely amongst the papers submitted by authors who's names begin with "A." I came up with a half dozen papers, about half of which are available for download from that site. I read the first one. I suspect there are more if you go to the other pages with papers from authors with last names beginning with other letters but then perhaps you just want to follow my explicit directions so that you can pick on the details of my presentation rather than really look for answers to your questions.
If your heart is dead set against this stuff, no amount of information from highly credentialed researchers, no matter what periodical accepted their writings for publishing, will give you any cause to abandon your "faith." You will look shallowly or not at all to answer your questions and would rather pick on me.

Maybe you should contact Dr.Chubb, and explain how you find his writing to be "bulls**t."
Dr. Scott R. Chubb
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC 20375-5343
(202) 767-5270; FAX (202) 767-3303; e-mail scott.chubb@nrl.navy.mil

Still, I see, your interest is piqued despite your wailing which might be no more than your cognitive dissonance resonating. This stuff brings up some big questions about how science is developing and the conclusions appear to be quite scarey. If this stuff is real, then our institutions are failing us. The fear of facing this conclusion might be more restricting than the Coulomb barrier is to fusion within some metal lattices.

Dinosaur: "mainstream physicists and journal editors are neither fools nor charlatans"

One should hope so, heh?

Mr. Chips: Still no summary by you or short quotes. Forget it. Aall you ever do is provide citations. As mentioned before, I have wasted enough time reading other citiations.

Keep the faith!

Mr Chips,

I am not here vouching for Cold Fusion but want to address a side issue.

Posted by Dinosaur: Regardless of the results of Cold Fusion experiments, there is no justification for the conclusion that nuclear fusion is taking place. Experimenters who claim that fusion is occurring are either deluded or are deliberate charlatans.

Dinosaur has openly admitted he has no real nuclear knowledge or experience. Yet he makes such absolute and damning statements regarding vast numbers of highly trained and experienced researchers that seem to believe CF is worth further research.

Processes devoid neutron production should be suspect as not being actual fusion but not necessarily eliminating the possability.

I do have nuclear knowledge and experience and in fact designed a minature MCF reactor for automobiles many years ago, which the chief nuclear engineer at Fusion Magazine came to my research company and reviewed.

His comments "It is very interesting and merits further study, send it to the NRC". I did and The NRC looked at it and sent a letter saying it would be studied further. Never heard from them again. (That could have several implications :o )

But in any case my point is this. The facts are that CF has now grown to the point that more and more respectable scientist support its further study, that it can no longer be dismissed. The old dodge "There is no known process to support the claim of nuclear fusion" is simply not adequate.

By the statement itself "No known process", says it all. Considering that particles are no more than bound energy and are formed of condensed EM energy means there may very well be a process where energy from CF electrodes is converting electrical energy into or transmuting some type particle into muons and that CF is both a muon generator as well as a MCF process.

(This is a gut guess on my part based on actual knowledge of nuclear physics. The 1E36 repulsion force is a fact and a valid cause to think CF can't possibly work and I believe it cannot UNLESS muons are infact involved. If muon creation is a viable process then CF becomes a viable process). These are IF's at this juncture. Regarding the extremely short life span of muons. One has to recall also that under th right conditions (generally between 1,500 - 2,500 F), each muon can cause 500 fusion events.

One should keep in mind that muon are nothing more than fat electrons. If electrical energy can be pumped into an existing electron you would get a muon.

I make this point because I feel this is the correct attitude one should take and not the totally negative one that is being expoused here. We should be looking for the possibilities and not claiming absolute negatives based on lack of knowledge or understanding.

Dinosaur and I have had our run in in the past as well and he tends to be very set in his views, even when he is out of his league. He is inclined to make absolute statements as fact when they are no more than opinions based on lack of knowledge.

"Dino" I am not posting this to start a war with you but to simply indicate to other readers that they should take your comments with a grain of salt and to maintain their interest in the CF activities which Mr Chips has properly brought to our attention.

There is simply to many, doing to much, and getting more and more results that appear to be nuclear in origin to continue to Poo-Poo CF.

I find it revealing that you apparently would rather debate Mr Chips on his view and understanding of CF, MCF or nuclear physics in general than to read and digest the great volume of material available and that he has provided.

I am unsure of Mr Chips nuclear knowledge or experience but I know mine. If you want a debate it starts here - As Bush said "Bring it on".

It was not my intent to pay much more attention to this thread, but the kind remarks by MacM seem to require a reply.

In numerous posts to this and other threads I have mentioned that I do not consider myself an expert in nuclear physics, quantum theory, and a few other subjects. I feel that my claim to non-expert status is accurate, and I wish that other posters would mention some of their credentials.

That having been said, I strongly suspect that I know more about modern physics than most (not all) of those who post to forums at this site. I never claimed to be ignorant of modern physics. I only claimed to be a non-expert.

I majored in mathematics and minored in physics at one of the better colleges on the East coast. I have subscribed to and read Scientific American since I was about ten years old. I own and have read numerous books on Cosmology, Quantum Theory, and Relativity. Since my late teens I have been interested in and read up on the frontiers of physics and cosmology.

Unlike some people, I have given up cherished concepts when evidence showed that they were no longer tenable. I never liked the Big Bang, and still have fond memories of the Steady State Universe championed by Hoyle. Alas, neither the Steady State (aka Continuous Creation) nor the oscillating universe survived the Big Bang onslaught, although perhaps some alternating crunch & bang cosmology might make a comeback.

I worked for the Air Force intelligence from 1951 to 1954 planning WW3 using manned bombers and the first H-Bombs. This job did not require an understanding of fission and fusion, but those of us with a pertinent background could not help but study the nuclear physics on which these weapons were based. From then until I retired, I was a programmer for various computer manufacturers and consulting companies, doing mainly mathematical and engineering programming as well as data processing, accounting, and all sorts of off-the-beaten-track applications. Due to the nature of my jobs, I often interacted with people interested in both theories of modern physics and technological applications.

I often speculate about SciFi-like possibilities, but tend to believe in the views of the scientific (not the political) establishment. While I have always had doubts about extreme extrapolations of accepted theories, I fully expect future physics to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. This has been true for the past 300 or so years, starting with Newton. New theories never make mince meat out of the old ones. NASA still uses Newtonian equations in every aspect of its space program. Relativity and Quantum Theory did not replace classical physics, it merely showed that the old theories could not be applied to extreme situations not known prior to modern times.

Similarly, I do not expect revolutionary developments in the future, except perhaps in the field of cosmology.

My opinions tend to match those of the current scientific establishment. When MacM asks you to ignore my views, he is advising you to ignore modern physics as currently accepted by the experts. Of course, this is advice that Mr. Chips is happy to accept since he believes the establishment is engaged in a conspiracy to suppress Cold Fusion research.

I do not want to start an all out pi**ing contest with MacM. I encourage you to read some of the threads started by or posted to by MacM. He has been arguing against various aspects of relativity for many years. In at least one thread dealing with apparent motion, he has taken a {b]what you observe is what is really happening[/b] view, even though that view of apparent motion is absurd.

When I had to make the shift from the intuitively comfortable views of classical physics to the weird world views of Relativity and Quantum theory, I was willing to accept counter-intuitive notions contrary to my early studies. I am quite willing to accept new views when they seem to have merit. MacM seems to have had trouble accepting the time and distance concepts of Relativity. BTW: I think he is a old guy like I am.

It is a shame that even today, a young person is taught classical physics for quite a few years, and given the impression that it is an absolutely true description of reality. Many who later are taught modern physics find it difficult (even impossible) to accept the counter-intuitive notions of Relativity and Quantum Theory.

As mentioned in previous posts, I am agnostic about Muon-Catalyzed-Fusion and Sono-luminescence. Note that researchers in these fields avoid the term Cold Fusion (these fields are unlike Cold Fusion, although they are sometimes lumped with CF). Unlike some of the Cold Fusion advocates, the MCF researchers do not seem to have high expectations for practical applications. I am not sure about the expectations of the son-luminescence researchers.

It is Cold Fusion that I claim to be nonsense. I hope I live long enough to see it given up by all but a lunatic fringe that will never give up, and who will surely encourage another generation of believers. As mentioned in previous posts, it is absurd to think that a major new discipline could be suppressed by the establishment for 15 years. Do you folks really believe that main stream physicists are charlatans or foolish enough to be conned by charlatans?

BTW: How about some supporting arguments instead of citations and complaints about a conspiracy?

Dinosaur,

We are in agreement about not starting a "Pis**ng" contest. That wasn't my purpose in posting. I posted because you efude a far to negative view of the prospects for CF based on 100% acceptance of current knowledge. Also I do not have a problem with your intelligence, training or background and have not accused you of claiming knowledge that you didn't have. Only that you tend to promote views that are a bit to absolute (conservative) for my taste.

My opinions tend to match those of the current scientific establishment.

Perhaps a few years ago this could have been a true statement. I think the primary issue and value of Mr Chips postings is that it clearly shows a dramatic shift in the mainstream interest in the subject. It is far from a slam dunk fraud , falacy or certainity.

When MacM asks you to ignore my views, he is advising you to ignore modern physics as currently accepted by the experts.

I don't recall telling readers to "ignore" your views. On this issue I suggested and are suggesting that your overly negative views are not supported by nuclear knowledge and that they should keep an open mind (as many mainstream scientist are now seeming to do).

Of course, this is advice that Mr. Chips is happy to accept since he believes the establishment is engaged in a conspiracy to suppress Cold Fusion research.

I do not support a conspiracy view. I do support an arrogant and ignorant view held by many that do nothing but a lot of hand waving without actually considering the current status of such research.

I do not want to start an all out pi**ing contest with MacM. I encourage you to read some of the threads started by or posted to by MacM. He has been arguing against various aspects of relativity for many years. In at least one thread dealing with apparent motion, he has taken a what you observe is what is really happening view, even though that view of apparent motion is absurd.

So you don't want a "Pis**ng" contest but then think you can slam me by innuendo. :D

Lets have a look at the issue where you think that my view is absurd. I have clearly stated that FTL observations are not satisfactorily explained by the "Relavistic Illusion" solution. I have acknowledged that such illusions could indeed be valid in some cases but not all. I specifically raised the issue of "Blue Shift" missing in the cases where posters here were claiming the relavistic illusion solution. I was told I didn't know what I was talking about and that I simply didn't understand. That all such phenomena should be considered resolved by this solution and that there is no such thing as FTL in physical reality.

Lets have a look shall we at the actual situation of this issue. From UniKEF Predictions:

************************************************** *
4 - It predicted that v = c limit imposed by Relativity was invalid and is not a velocity limit for an independent inertial system. That objects would be found that exceeded the speed of light.

Many such objects have been found. NASA/MIT in collaboration have found over 60 such objects. These objects are all moving traverse or orthogonal to us and it is not v=>c relative motion to us. This fact is supported in the UniKEF view. The highly tauted "Illusion Solution" is an Ad Hoc mathematical compensation devised to explain away FTL but falls short of actual resolution since it fails to account for missing "Blue Shift" in such observations.


************************************************** ***
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Kellermann/Kell6_3.html

********************** Extract ************************
“ Attempts to understand the superluminal motion have produced a flurry of imaginative phenomenological interpretations including

(a) real tachyonic motion;

(b) grossly incorrect Hubble constant or non-cosmological red shifts (Kellermann & Shaffer 1977, Burbidge 1978) or incorrect cosmological model (Segal 1979);

(c) light echoes (Lynden-Bell 1977, Lynden-Bell & Liller 1978);

(d) gravitational lenses and screens (Barnothy & Barnothy 1971, Chitre & Narlikar 1980);

(e) systematic variations in synchrotron opacity (Epstein & Geller (1977);

(f) synchrotron or curvature radiation from electrons gyrating in a fixed dipole field (Milgrom & Bahcall 1978, Sanders & Da Costa 1978, Bachall & Milgrom 1980);

(g) various kinematic illusions caused by the finite signal propagation time (Rees 1966, 1967, Cavaliere et al. 1971). ”

************************************************** ****

"g" above is the "Illusion Solution". While they give it the best evaluation, they also give considerable objections to it.

EXTRACT: (c) To produce the observed superluminal motion, the motion must be closely aligned with a narrow cone along the line of sight which has an a priori probability of 1 percent (1/2 gamma); yet about half of all compact sources show evidence for superluminal motion, either from the VLBI observations or, less directly, but for a much larger sample, from the flux density variations.

NOTE the gamma symbol didn't cut and paste. Added by text.

AND:

************************* EXTRACT *******************

It is unlikely that this effect can be important in normal quasars, as the line and continuum intensities are typically comparable, and there is no evidence that the line emission in quasars contains a significant blue shift.

Guthrie & Napier (1975) and S. van den Bergh (1978, private communication) have suggested that the one-sided optical continuum and radio jets in M87 and 3C 273 may also be the blue-shifted components of a symmetric ejection. We note, in addition, that in some superluminal sources, asymmetric extended radio emission is sometimes found along the line of motion, but tens of kiloparsecs (Davis et al. 1978, Perley & Johnston 1979), or even several megaparsecs (Reich et al. 1980) away, suggesting that bulk relativistic motion may be important at much larger distances from the parent object than previously supposed.
************************************************

Instead of being "absurd" my view seems to be 99/1 more accurate than those that wanted to argue the issue. 1 % chance. HeHe.

And the absence of "Blue Shift" should have been an obvious flaw not only to the experts here but those proposing the solution. I don't see the failure to recognize that as a conspiracy. I see it as being blinded by absolute faith in Relativity where it simply cannot be justified. "Find a way of explaining things within the bounds of Relativity and then look no further". That is the mentality of today. If old Crackpot MacM thought of "Blue Shift" one would think the experts both here and proposing the solution should have realized it also. Maybe, just maybe old MacM not only understands Relativity (in contrast to claims made here) better than some of the "Experts"

http://mist.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw71.html

When I had to make the shift from the intuitively comfortable views of classical physics to the weird world views of Relativity and Quantum theory, I was willing to accept counter-intuitive notions contrary to my early studies. I am quite willing to accept new views when they seem to have merit. MacM seems to have had trouble accepting the time and distance concepts of Relativity.

This only shows how little about UniKEF you actually know. Many of the same affect occur in UniKEF but they have alternative explanations and consequently different ultimate conclusions regarding the meaning of such variations.

BTW: I think he is a old guy like I am.

:D HeHe. 63 and half a century dealing with science at the frontiers.

MacM: Well done!! Sorry that I took the bait and opened the door for you to post your ideas about uniKEF theory, apparent motion, and other pet topics.

This thread is about Cold Fusion. Go start another thread for other topics.

Dinosaur,

MacM: Well done!! Sorry that I took the bait and opened the door for you to post your ideas about uniKEF theory, apparent motion, and other pet topics.

No sorry required. I am not here to discuss UniKEF. James started that thread and I keep that topic there except when somebody brings it up.

You did open the door. I hope I have closed it. I do not want to distract this thread but don't attack and expect I won't respond. Fair enough?

Now with that behind us would you care to comment on my speculation regarding CF?

By the statement itself "No known process", says it all. Considering that particles are no more than bound energy and are formed of condensed EM energy means there may very well be a process where energy from CF electrodes is converting electrical energy into or transmuting some type particle into muons and that CF is both a muon generator as well as a MCF process.

(This is a gut guess on my part based on actual knowledge of nuclear physics. The 1E36 repulsion force is a fact and a valid cause to think CF can't possibly work and I believe it cannot UNLESS muons are infact involved. If muon creation is a viable process then CF becomes a viable process). These are IF's at this juncture. Regarding the extremely short life span of muons. One has to recall also that under the right conditions (generally between 1,500 - 2,500 F), each muon can cause a cascade of 500 fusion events.

One should keep in mind that muons are nothing more than fat electrons. If electrical energy can be pumped into an existing electron you would get a muon.

Dinosaur,

Found and added second extract from paper that shows the "Illusion Solution" is seriously flawed due to absence of "Blue Shift". Page 3, 9 April @ 4:36 PM.

So how "Absurd" is old MacM's views now bubba?

Mac, I don't want to hijack Mr. Chips thread, but your conclusions about no
blue shift
in Quasar 3c 273 may not be accurate. Have you read any of the recient research?
T start with, 3c 273 is a radio Quasar. A link:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-objsearch?search_type=Obj_id&objid=62790&objname=35&img_stamp=YES
Detail observations have been going on since 2001. A plot of the ejecta has been done
in one wavelength so far.... the x-ray spectrum. I know you know x-rays are on the
shorter wavelength scale of the EM spectrum, on the "blue" side as compared to optical light and on the blue side of a radio source (3C 273) All wavelengths have not
been plotted yet, so all results are not in, but it is not correct to say 3C 273 has a
definate superluminal component yet.
http://www.bu.edu/blazars/X-ray/3c273x.html

2Inquisiyive,

I agree we should not get off track here. CF is a valid discussion of its own. However, let me make two quick points and then lets move on.

Mac, I don't want to hijack Mr. Chips thread, but your conclusions about no red shift in Quasar 3c 273 may not be accurate.

1 - I have never commented about "No Red Shift on any FTL discussion". It is absence of "Blue Shift" ((This is strange. I read your post more than once and I swear it stated "no red shift". Infact the above "quote" is a cut and paste. That is the reason for this response. But just now it says "Blue Shift" and it does not show the thread has been edited. How did you do that?))

2 - I have not claimed that FTL is proven but only that the "Relavisitic Illusion Solution" was not complete and does not preclude FTL as was being claimed. It on analysis only has a 1 % chance of being the answer.

Back to CF. I am still waiting for some feedback on the suggestion that CF may somehow be transmuting or creating muons and it is some marginal MCF process.

Interesting:

It was suggested that we get back to the topic. I posted a hunch and nobody has commented. I have seen at least two of my detractors here were viewing this thread and neither seemed to care to post.

Therefore I will post what I have found since I made the suggestion.

http://www.terra.es/personal/gsardin/muon.pdf

Muons it turns out are nothing more than electrons in a Quantum Harmonic Oscillator energy state.

Makes CF even more likely to be a muon generator MCF process I would think.

Hardly conforms to the suggestion that it is all fraud or charlatans or that there is no known process by which it could be nuclear.

The only criteria left to consider is if it produces neutrinos or neutrons in the process. Some I have read do.

I must also make a side note which I don't like to do. Accepting this would mean that the excess energy of vibration of the electron making it a muon has mass and gravity potential. I really don't want to believe that.

MacM:

The link you posted in your last post contains a bunch of rubbish. I assume it is somebody's pet theory. It is clearly written by somebody who seemingly doesn't know what a quantum harmonic oscillator is.

Suffice it to say that the muon and the electron are not two different states of a quantum harmonic oscillator. If the rest of your post depends on that conclusion, then it is equally wrong.

James R.,

MacM:

The link you posted in your last post contains a bunch of rubbish. I assume it is somebody's pet theory. It is clearly written by somebody who seemingly doesn't know what a quantum harmonic oscillator is.

Suffice it to say that the muon and the electron are not two different states of a quantum harmonic oscillator. If the rest of your post depends on that conclusion, then it is equally wrong.

Though unintended a parallel discussion of this paper evolved in "Relavistic Rest Mass" because I posted it as evidence which opposes my view there and it is clear that this is not a bonafide paper. "Ozzing" as a scientific term seems to give it away. :D

My point however, stands and that is I think there are to many people taking a negative hardline when data and interest in the issue seems to be going the other way and we should be looking for "How" and not labeling everything fraud, hoax, etc., in the interim.

Posted by MacM:

(This is a gut guess on my part based on actual knowledge of nuclear physics. The 1E36 repulsion force is a fact and a valid cause to think CF can't possibly work and I believe it cannot UNLESS muons are infact involved. If muon creation is a viable process then CF becomes a viable process). These are IF's at this juncture. Regarding the extremely short life span of muons. One has to recall also that under the right conditions (generally between 1,500 - 2,500 F), each muon can cause a cascade of 500 fusion events.

One should keep in mind that muons are nothing more than fat electrons. If electrical energy can be pumped into an existing electron you would get a muon.

I believe the "IF's attached to this statment qualifies it and my intent. I am not saying this IS but something like this MUST BE for CF to be real. One must find a viable process that can overcome the columb repulsion.

Others here have not read the "IF's" qualifiers and have thought I was vouching for the particular process. I have not.

Historically, Dinosaur has accused me of being an expert politician at squirming out of corners. I actually take that as a compliment in that I do know nuclear physics and when on thin ice I try to leave myself an out. :D

MacM: This thread relates to Cold Fusion. I refuse to get dragged into discussion of any of your pet topics. I might get involved if another thread is started.

That having been said, I cannot help but reply to the following.So how "Absurd" is old MacM's views now bubba?Cannot find Page 3 of some source unknown to me and unnamed by you. I still think most of your views (especially on apparent motion) are absurd, and I find it amazing that anybody could spend time over a period of 30 or more years trying to fight relativity with some weird theory of his own.

As posted previously by me, Muon Catalyzed Fusion seems to have some validity. It is my guess that you read that post and tried to pretend it is an idea of your own, although you did not explicitly claim to have come up with the idea.. Unlike some Cold Fusion researchers, the MCF researchers do not claim that the process shows any promise of being a practical source of energy. They also do not want to be viewed as endorsing the other research referred to as Cold Fusion. Apparently they do not have much (if any respect) for Cold Fusion research. The following by you is fascinating. One should keep in mind that muons are nothing more than fat electrons. If electrical energy can be pumped into an existing electron you would get a muon.A muon is about 200 times as massive as an electron (217 seems like a number I remember). It has the same electric charge as an electron and can take the place of an electron in an atom. I do not think any atom but hydrogen has been created using a muon in place of an electron. If you had said a muon could be made from an electron by pumping in extra mass, you might have shown an understanding of muons that is in the right ball park. Pumping in electrical energy? I suppose you will come up with some relativity explanation about the electrical energy being turned into mass to explain the gaff.

Others: I am still waiting for some plausible theory, but will no longer take time to plod through cited articles unless there is an abstract indicating something of merit.

As mentioned previously, 15 years is a long time to maintain a conspiracy. Mainstream physicists are neither charlatans nor fools. Do you believers really think that a major new concept can be suppressed for that long if it has validity? How long do you think a valid concept in physics can be suppressed? Will you give up in another 5 years? Ten? 20 and I will no longer be here to say I told you so.

Dinosaur,

MacM: This thread relates to Cold Fusion. I refuse to get dragged into discussion of any of your pet topics. I might get involved if another thread is started.

I have to reiterate that it was you that raised the issue but I agree we shouldn't go there here.

That having been said, I cannot help but reply to the following.
“ So how "Absurd" is old MacM's views now bubba? ”

Cannot find Page 3 of some source unknown to me and unnamed by you. I still think most of your views (especially on apparent motion) are absurd, and I find it amazing that anybody could spend time over a period of 30 or more years trying to fight relativity with some weird theory of his own.

The Page 3, 9 April @ 4:36 PM, is in this thread. Just click on it. If you want to re-open that discussion elsewhere then feel free to do so, I'll join you in it.

As posted previously by me, Muon Catalyzed Fusion seems to have some validity. It is my guess that you read that post and tried to pretend it is an idea of your own,

You really don't have any respect for the fact that I have had nuclear engineering do you. Oh Well.

although you did not explicitly claim to have come up with the idea.. Unlike some Cold Fusion researchers, the MCF researchers do not claim that the process shows any promise of being a practical source of energy.

I too find the prospect of CF as aviable commercial process unlikely (but not impossible). The one suggetion I have made is to try and increase the bulk temperature of the cells into the MCF efficiency range (1,500 - 2,500 F) to see if it enhances the chain reaction in an effort to reach breakeven.

They also do not want to be viewed as endorsing the other research referred to as Cold Fusion. Apparently they do not have much (if any respect) for Cold Fusion research.

That is understandable since there has been to much flakey work done. It makes bonafide research hard to recognize. No one wants to be caught supporting a fraud, etc. People are making claims to early to be the first and then results cannot be repeated