Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (cold fusion)

[river]

I'm not up on this thread

but is it possible that cold fusion is a real possibility

[kwhilborn]

@ Tronk..
I think you are on to something.
@ River
Cold fusion is not really possible, although that might be argued these days. However during cold fusion research other Low Energy Nuclear Reactions have been spotted and now constantly repeated with enough excess heat to replace all other energy sources before too long.

Research L.E.N.R. , ecat , etc.

[billvon]

but is it possible that cold fusion is a real possibility

Is it likely that cold fusion will provide us all with cheap, clean power? No.

Is it likely that the study of cold fusion will lead to some interesting discoveries in the realm of physics and materials science? Yes.

[river]

@ Tronk..
I think you are on to something.
@ River
Cold fusion is not really possible, although that might be argued these days. However during cold fusion research other Low Energy Nuclear Reactions have been spotted and now constantly repeated with enough excess heat to replace all other energy sources before too long.

Research L.E.N.R. , ecat , etc.

interesting

thanks kwhilborn

I thought of cold fusion as the ability for atoms to slide together , sort of like a sphere or cube , interlock to produce a shape of easyness so to speak

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
but is it possible that cold fusion is a real possibility

Is it likely that cold fusion will provide us all with cheap, clean power? No. Is it likely that the study of cold fusion will lead to some interesting discoveries in the realm of physics and materials science? Yes.

this quest should be very interesting

would love to be there

[Billy T]

to RiverIf you want to see a proof that E-cats are not cold fusion see:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=577
Walter, in post 400 has suggested that muon assisted cold fusion may be possible, but not economically attractive due to cost of producing the muons.

I have not checked but there may be a net energy problem too. You get out the fusion energy and must first put in the energy (rest mass energy at least) of the muon production. It would be a negative muon orbiting around the proton, much closer than the electron of neutral hydrogen does. Thus two "muonic hydrogens" could get much closer together before these two + charges repel each other. Probably they could form "muonic molecular hydrogen" H2, but its orbitals are quantized and I think the separation between the two protons of "muonic molecular hydrogen" is much greater than the range of the strong force between them. Quantium effeects will resist the two proton coming closer also. (The compressibility normal H2, in the very cold liquid state, may give some indication of how strong these quantum effects are. Once they do get close enough to be "inside their orbiting electrons" / unshielded but negative charge/, you need to supply energy (kinetic) to get them still closer so they begin to attract via the strong nuclear force.

In practice there would be other energy cost (more than the rest mass of the muon) in the production - especailly if one is operating a large particle accelerator etc.

[kwhilborn]

NASA speaks out finally!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=mxeKeuh_2Bw#!
(watch youtube video above link)

This is a NASA video. Langley and Glen Research Centers are mentioned. The narrator is also explicit, directly attributing the work as NASA’s. This appears to me to be a significant change in their public face in this arena. Never shy of talking about off the wall projects, they have nevertheless left the talking to a few individuals. This video is meant for public consumption. It is a scientific and political statement by the organisation.

Dr Joseph Zawodny; the NASA scientist speaking in the video is also the person attached to the patent discussed earlier, and was a presenter at the LENR conference where we saw his slides.

NASA speaks out finally!
NASA speaks out finally!!
NASA speaks out finally!!!



This also confirms that carbon is also used in the reactor and is part of the "catalyst".

[Billy T]

NASA speaks out finally!...

I don't think that true. "One NASA guy with vested interest in his patent speaks out" is more accurate.

Go here and see the NASA's official announcements of dozens of new (back thru 2008) NASA inventions/ patents:
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/in...ia#nov201129.1

Not one of which concerns LENR.

[adoucette]

The YouTube video implies it's from the NASA Technology Gateway, but no reference to that video can be found there

http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/

[kwhilborn]

@ Adoucette,
I should have given the link directly from the NASA website. Here it is as it appears from NASA website.
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html

This is a NASA website used for disclosing NASA announcements. The speaker is a senior research NASA scientist Dr. Joseph Zalowsky. The film itself mentions Glen and Langley research centers, and bears NASA logos throughout. This video is undoubtedly a NASA press release.

@ Billy T,
I am a bit upset that you are still on the fence about this, or at least to the point to state that,

Billy T - "One NASA guy with vested interest in his patent speaks out"

I had you pegged as someone who would be excited about this topic and that you would already be building one in your basement. Nuclear physics is obviously close to your heart.

I apologize if I misled people (and you) by stating the Patent belonged to Dr. Joseph Zawodny. He is listed as the inventor only, and all rights to this have been assigned to NASA, so he has NO technical vested interest in the patent except for his reputation.

When I first brought up the patent I did state that it was a NASA patent.
Here is the patent again.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZawodnyJmethodforp.pdf
(Dr. Joseph Zawodny assigned to NASA patent linked above)



NASA speaks out finally!

http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
(watch youtube video above link, this is the corrected NASA website version.)

This is a NASA video. Langley and Glen Research Centers are mentioned. The narrator is also explicit, directly attributing the work as NASA’s. This appears to me to be a significant change in their public face in this arena. Never shy of talking about off the wall projects, they have nevertheless left the talking to a few individuals. This video is meant for public consumption. It is a scientific and political statement by the organisation.

Dr Joseph Zawodny; the NASA scientist speaking in the video is also the person attached to the patent discussed earlier, and was a presenter at the LENR conference where we saw his slides.

NASA speaks out finally!
NASA speaks out finally!!
NASA speaks out finally!!!



This also confirms that carbon is also used in the reactor and is part of the "catalyst".

Attention: This video is N.A.S.A. claiming we can replicate a new cheap and green energy source, with Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

IF anyone is still on the fence about this science, NASA claims can be pretty convincing. This is not Andrea Rossi claiming this but the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (USA).

Time to get excited?

same video linked many times below.... woot!

http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html

To emphasize importance of yesterdays announcement from NASA.

[billvon]

Attention: This video is N.A.S.A. claiming we can replicate a new cheap and green energy source, with Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

Here we go again!

Remember how you were disappointed when Rossi turned out to not have the answer to cheap, green energy that he was claiming he did? He who does not learn from history is destined to repeat it.

[spidergoat]

The fact that there are patents is encouraging, but I still haven't seen any proper scientific papers on the subject. Not that I would understand it if there were, but I know some people who would.

[kwhilborn]

@ Spidergoat,



In post 793 I described the Widom-Larsen Theory in terms most people can understand. There does seem to be confusion among physicists about what is occurring, and the most promising theories seem to implicate The Widom-Larsen Theory coupled with Beta Decay.
The excess heat is a phenomenon discovered repeatedly as "accidents" during "cold fusion" research. Cold fusion is a bad term and we had James R change the name of this thread to Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. LENR is only related to cold fusion because it was cold fusion research that led to this discovery.

The original Fleischmann/Pons experiments were correct, but they could not repeat their results because they were concentrating more on fusion than the middle processes which were overlooked.

We now have repeatable excess heat with enough energy to supply all of our future power needs.

This is monumental occassion!! It means we will have a smog free planet for our children. Woot!!

For any who missed the news. NASA has put together a Press Release Video that is on a NASA website.
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html

(This is an official senior NASA scientist on a NASA video on a NASA website. It is pretty clear this is now their official stance.)

[Rhaedas]

We now have repeatable excess heat with enough energy to supply all of our future power needs.

This is monumental occassion!! It means we will have a smog free planet for our children. Woot!!

That's a big jump from scientists who understand the field not sure on what they're seeing, to unlimited power.

And I discussed the patent elsewhere of Dr. Zalowsky. It's a cover all type of patent, in case anything comes of it. I'm all for getting excited of potential discovery, and I think we'll learn something from all this, regardless of success or failure. But declaring it for something it isn't just turns people off, especially when you repeat the same links ad nauseum. That doesn't contribute anything, it just make it all look even less reputable.

[Trippy]

And yet, nothing here:
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/in...seaction=media

And nothing in my Inbox (I have Kepler, WISE, Herschel and Spitzer, but no Zawodny).

I thought this was interesting though:
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/.../#comment-2874
Krivit is bagging Rossi. Why is this interesting? Because Krivit has co-authored work with Zawodny on LENR, and the video, which appears to be being misrepresented by various posters (including on this forum) is described by Krivet as "A two-minute non-technical video clip on LENRs ... Joseph Zawodny."
Source

It seems like someone may have thoroughly grapsed the wrong end of the stick rather firmly in both hands and started swinging.

[Trippy]

Addendum:
Interestingly, there's nothing on his personal blog, and nothing on his G+ page about any of this. I might email him when I get home and ask him.

[kwhilborn]

@ Rhaedas,
This NASA video was released yesterday.
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html

It is a NASA scientist confirming NASA stands behind LENR as a clean energy source, and admit they can repeat the process. I will also repeat that no one completely understands why this is happening. There are a multitude of theories discussed on this thread.

@ Trippy,

Unsure I understood much of what you just said. Krivit and Rossi are not "friends" and this energy will shut down the well renowned "newenergytimes" website belonging to Krivit.

http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html

This is the NASA link. I am unsure why there is no Zawodny label attached to it if you searched except to say it is a new NASA video. I agree there should be some search tags available, but cannot deny this is a NASA website.

@ Trippy still,
Unsure if you are wondering how Zawodny relates to this tech. He is stamped on this tech all over the place. Aside from this video you can view his slide show here.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/governm...R-Workshop.pdf
and a related patent here listing him as the inventor but assignee is NASA.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZawodnyJmethodforp.pdf

He apparently must do work without emailing you about it? I also did not receive an email from him, and I just checked again. I apologize if I misinterpreted what you are saying, but it sounds as if Dr. Zawodny should be checking in with you.

If you want we can also remind you about The Chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley Dennis Bushnell, and look at his slides also.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/governm...R-Workshop.pdf
or Nelson
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/governm...R-Workshop.pdf

Those slideshows were about as close to confirmation as NASA had made about LENR until this video.

NASA confirms LENR is real in a NASA video from a NASA scientist on a NASA website with NASA logos plastered all over it.
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html

In the past when people deny NASA they are thought of as conspiracy theorists. Are you a conspiracy theorist? You obviously doubt NASA.

[Trippy]

@ Trippy,

Unsure I understood much of what you just said. Krivit and Rossi are not "friends" and this energy will shut down the well renowned "newenergytimes" website belonging to Krivit.

So... Zawodny, who co-authored work with Krivit, is endorsing work that makes his and Krivit's work redundant?

Have you thought this through at all?

This is the NASA link. I am unsure why there is no Zawodny label attached to it if you searched except to say it is a new NASA video. I agree there should be some search tags available, but cannot deny this is a NASA website.

But that doesn't make it anything more than an informational video thrown together by Zawdony.
It's not an endorsement of Rossi's work.
Rossi's work isn't even mentioned.
And it's not an official NASA press release.

Unsure if you are wondering how Zawodny relates to this tech.

No, I'm not wondering at all, thankyou.

He apparently must do work without emailing you about it? I also did not receive an email from him, and I just checked again. I apologize if I misinterpreted what you are saying, but it sounds as if Dr. Zawodny should be checking in with you.

You did, quite significantly (although, for all you know, he should be).

All I meant was I am subscribed to an email network that means that I get copies of all major NASA press releases, and there has been nothing about this.

In the past when people deny NASA they are thought of as conspiracy theorists. Are you a conspiracy theorist? You obviously doubt NASA.

Are you smoking crack?

The only thing I doubt is your interpretation of this video, and the spin you're putting on it.

[Rhaedas]

Posting a link five times in a row makes it more true.

Repeating this action in the same thread over and over is double good.

Seriously, there's been a small bit of good discussion on what might be going on in the various LENR ideas, but for a big chuck of this thread, it's been a LOT of repeated info, mostly of PR stuff and not real science.

A video on a site that shares the NASA domain that speculates on what could happen if a process works like a scientist thinks it may work is a far, far cry from NASA coming out and saying that LENR generators will be publicly for sale in Wal-mart next Christmas. Quite frankly, Rossi has given out more technical info on his stuff than this video does.

Because it's all theory right now, with not a lot to back it up. Otherwise they WOULD be scrambling to put together something that works.

If there's so much known about this, let's ask a simple question that I believe was put to Rossi's device as well and not known. What's the net power production available? Shouldn't be a hard thing to answer.

[Billy T]

... @ Billy T,
I am a bit upset that you are still on the fence about this, or at least to the point to state that, ...I apologize if I misled people (and you) by stating the Patent belonged to Dr. Joseph Zawodny. He is listed as the inventor only, and all rights to this have been assigned to NASA, so he has NO technical vested interest in the patent except for his reputation. ...

Fact that it is assigned to NASA, is due to the employment contract he signed. I have more than a dozen patents that are assigned to the Applied physics lab of JUH for the same reason. US Navy has right to royality free use as they were main source of my salary. I did not pay the fees etc. for any, except one, which could not conceivable be of much interest to the Navy. (A very large solar energy system with a large and unique "mass flow" absorber that does not have significant re-radiation losses even though its flowing mass, typically a sunlight transparent but an IR absorbing gas, gets very hot. See now many years expired US patent 4033118 for details and my two Applied Optics articles related to it referenced in the patent. ) I paid fees for that one and after more than a year of efforts, got the Navy and APL/ JHU to release ownership to me. (The employment contract does allow private ownership of patents not related to your work or objectives of APL/JHU, but I sought and got official release of ownership to me anyway.)

Let me again state I am 100% sure there is no fusion as that term is normally understood. There may be (should be) some of the grinding energy released if the fine dust is rejoined to reduce the total surface area. I can not find any plausible way for the conversion of protons into neutrons, that most postulate is done, without serious violation of conservation of energy, so I lean towards idea that any net heat (above the release of grinding energy stored in tiny dust specks fusing) being of a chemical nature.

Also in addition to the negative energy objections I noted in prior posts, I now note that if even only 1% of the required energy could be given to a surface proton, it would ejected from the surface - sort of like thermal energies can eject unbound electrons from surfaces. The Widom-Larsen theory is pure hand waving nonsense, orders of magnitude impossible for this "proton would be ejected" reason alone.
If it were true, they (he?) could have published in a peer-reviewed journal.

I did re-watch half of:

...http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/me...lenr/lenr.html (watch youtube video above link, this is the corrected NASA website version.)

which only seems to have a slightly changed first few seconds. There is NOTHING to change my POV expressed in post 808 that NASA has had nothing to due with this video.

I will now note that NASA would never release something claimed to be so important with some tie-less spokesman dressed in a plaid hunting shirt / jacket.
Even if it were only 1% as important as claimed, there would be a press conference with hundreds of news people, TV, etc. covering the event. Even though they are not normally physicists, they can smell a scam / delusional ego trip / a mile away. Is there something wrong with your nose?