Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Boardie Documentary Club Discussion #5: War on Cold Fusion


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#1 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 25 December 2011 - 03:36 PM

Before you place any value judgement on the cover of this documentary, I'd l'd like to say the following: This documentary is filled with highly qualified in the field professors (phd level) and independent researchers that offer multiple sides of the argument.




As for any questions regarding the information, I really have none. My expressed view on this matter is that, having seen this anomaly first hand, I'm confident that eventually this technology if given its due diligence, can become a viable alternative to our current energy problems.

#2 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,280 posts

Posted 25 December 2011 - 11:00 PM

Shut up and learn. :lol:

It would be pretty cool to see this in action.

#3 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 01:22 AM

Lol! Not at all. Pleade discuss after watching in any form. I hope people can remain objective until after watching.

#4 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 01:41 PM

As a self follow up on this, and an important realization into scientific research, government funding and media attention, I took the time to read as much about the research from as many angles as possible. I happened to stumble upon a Cornell University Archive PDF. Within this article I found the name of a particular physicist that will show up again in another one of the most highly debated incidents regarding science in the last 20 some years.

Here is a blip from page 7:

The possibility of room temperature fusion had been known since 1948, experimentally
demonstrated in 1956, and thoroughly explored throughout the 1 9 8 0 ~ . ~ The experimental setup
used by B. Stanley Pons, professor and chairman of the chemistry department a t Utah, and hi s
colleague Martin Fleischmann, a research professor a t the University of Southampton in England,
had been reported in 1926 (though those results were retracted the next year).
The events t h a t led to the 1989 press conference had begun nearly a year earlier, when
Pons and Fleischmann prepared a gr ant proposal on the i r ideas about using electrolysis to drive
the deuterium from heavy water into a palladium cathode--and thus creating fusion. They
submitted their proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy, which asked nuclear physicist Steven
Jones a t Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, to review it. Jones had been one of the
leaders in research on muon-catalyzed fusion (the "well-known" form of room temperature fusion)
throughout the 1980s, but he was now working on new ways of creating fusion through
electrolysis--what h e called "piezonuclear fusion."
Though Jones had been working on piezonuclear fusion since 1986, only by the fall of 1988
had his team developed a neutron detector sufficiently sensitive t o measure the low levels of
neutrons produced by his experiments. Pons and Fleischmann, who said they had begun working
on their electrochemical experiments around 1984 and had been funding the research from their
own pockets, also reinvigorated their research program in the fall of 1988, hiring one of Pons's
graduate students, Marvin Hawkins, to design, build, and run new cells and to begin to study the
nuclear aspects of the i r apparatus.
Jones suggested through the DOE t h a t h e exchange information with the University of
Utah team, since the two groups seemed to be working on complementary aspects of the same
experimental setup. The two groups shared information early in 1989, and they met a t BYU in
late February. On March 6, they met again, this time with the presidents of their universities
attending a s well.
By now, Jones had submitted an abstract for a talk in May t h a t included references to "a
new form of cold nuclear fusion." Jones was ready to go public. But Pons and Fleischmann weren't.


Once again, we find ourselves with Dr. Steven Jones at the forefront of breaking research into the media and in turn, the government and public eye. If you know who Jones is, I highly recommend taking a real close look at his career and his work. Just thought I should put this out there, as the documentary fails to mention the details of the involvement of Jones in the saga of cold fusion.

His name will appear again years later regarding another important matter in the world of physics. Tread carefully my friends, and stay thirsty.

#5 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,280 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 02:05 PM

"I don't know how much longer I can hold her together."

#6 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 02:08 PM

"No can do, Captn'. I can not reach the control panel!" ~ Star Trek 35: So very tired...... :lol:

#7 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 26 December 2011 - 03:52 PM

For an update on where this field has been and where it may be going since the production of the documentary offered for discussion, Mike McKubre (found in the above Doc)gives the following lecture (if you have any interest in this) in October of this year.



OK, I'll let ya'll have at it from here. :lol:

#8 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,967 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 27 December 2011 - 04:44 PM

Watched the first one. Gonna watch the recent lecture before commenting.

#9 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,429 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 27 December 2011 - 05:20 PM

nice...this looks cool.

#10 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,363 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 06:16 PM

Cool stuff!

I aren't scientiss, but it sure seems to me that there's some truth to the notion of excess heat being created in these reactions.

A couple of thoughts/concerns...nuclear byproducts from this being done on a large scale - while tritium is relatively innocuous, I don't want to see it ending up in the water supply more than it already is (another process in the film mentioned Helium-4, which would be less of a concern)...reliance on use of heavy water, precious (or any other) metals, and other stuff which it takes energy to create/mine...and it's not clear to me if anything is consumed by this process - the holy grail to me would be something completely sustainable.

Will look at the more recent footage when I get a chance.

Enjoyed watching...well laid out, and makes its case.

#11 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 07:37 PM

while tritium is relatively innocuous, I don't want to see it ending up in the water supply more than it already is (another process in the film mentioned Helium-4, which would be less of a concern)

Presumably, should they perfect self contained output through this method, and funding show up along with scientific interest in main stream chemistry/physics pushing this technology into commercial application, we could start the process of containing the negative exhausts notable at this time frame.

It seems that through academic budget wars, fenced in scientific boundaries and some determined high profile parties, this baby was thrown out with the bath water.

I've been following this for years. I saw that an italian researcher has really taken it to new heights with the e-cat (energy catalyzer). Apparently, he is fighting for patent, but may lose due to another patent of similar nature (of course, the researcher has no interest in releasing the mystery to his technology).

Nuclear fusion was at one time simply a laboratory science as well...:gop:

#12 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,363 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 09:03 PM

It could well be an answer. If it's economically viable, and doesn't use up too much stuff to do its thing...

#13 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,363 posts

Posted 27 December 2011 - 09:04 PM

Though I'm kinda down with the not depending on outside sources for too many of my needs, so if it could be very localized, that would be even bitchiner...

#14 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,545 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 02:27 AM

I am watching now. Half way through but pausing.

First. I have an incredible appreciation for scientific inquiry and the type of mind that engages it. Seeing that machinery and equipment was quite humbling. and the minds of those who can interpret such studies? woah.

Second, within the first 10 minutes, Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions came to mind (Dave have you read it?) :

"In this work, Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science." Scientific progress had been seen primarily as a continuous increase in a set of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. During revolutions in science the discovery of anomalies leads to a whole new paradigm that changes the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research, asks new questions of old data, and moves beyond the puzzle-solving of normal science."

Third, my reaction, thus far, has little to do with the truth or falsity of the possibility of cold fusion (I haven't the first clue about nuclear chemistry), but I am befuddled by the religious-like fervor of those in the scientific community who cling to (what may be) outdated paradigms (Kuhn's book details this). Is it fear that compels some to deny new information? Ego/arrogance of the classical physicists? Allegiance to those who fund and promote only main stream research? It seems to me the "pathological science" is the science that clings to existing and approved paradigms, even when confronted with an alternative possibility. Is that not just another example of fundamentalism?

The accusations and inquiries against the scientist believed to have discovered this are insane.

The MIT publication that altered the research findings is outrageous (but not surprising)

Just as Inside Job revealed the collusion between academics and govt. economic thinking and policy, this video seems to reveal the collusion between academics and energy thinking and policy. I'd be interested to discover from where does the majority of the funding for these research facilities originate... to whom do they answer?

I'm going back to watch the second half.

okay, up to 56 minutes and bored now. this stuff is over my head.

#15 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,429 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 28 December 2011 - 02:31 AM

my toilet cold fusions when i take my morning dump

#16 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,545 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 02:37 AM

shut up, stink butt

#17 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,545 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 02:47 AM

The Rockefellers had their hands in the development of the NEA, their money is all over academia, they are oil giants... any connection between those who fund the research, what warrants research, and what gets published?

http://andrewgavinma...n-of-knowledge/

The Yale Institute was developing close relationships with and training personnel for government positions, principally at the State Department, the War Department (later named the Department of Defense), the Board of Economic Warfare, and the Office of the Co-ordinator of Inter-American Affairs, which was led by Nelson Rockefeller. The Yale Institute was even approached by the War Department “to establish a School of Asiatic Studies for army staff officers, which it duly did in the summer of 1945.”[7] The Yale Institute had “contributed significantly to the diffusion of the ‘realist’ paradigm in America and Europe,” in generating a “new ‘consensus of power’ in the discipline of international relations,”[8] which came to be the paradigm oft-employed by some of America’s most highly influential foreign policy thinkers and policymakers, such as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. As Parmar explained:

The Rockefeller Foundation consciously used its strategic position to foster certain experts, specific institutes and organizations, and lines of inquiry to ensure the generation of a particular ‘world-view’, which would have intellectual and scientific respectability and, therefore, ideological and political credibility with government and public alike.[9]

In many universities, the Rockefeller Foundation (and its partners, Carnegie and Ford) helped establish ‘non-Western’ studies, specifically Area Studies and Soviet Studies, “as a key basis upon which relevant practical advice and information could be produced for the benefit of official policy makers and for the attentive and opinion-forming publics.” As Inderjeet Parmar wrote in an article for the journal, Global Networks:

The Ford Foundation alone spent $190 million on building up US expertise in world affairs at top US universities such as Harvard, Columbia, Chicago, Berkeley, Stanford, Cornell and Michigan. A State Department survey of 1967 showed that of the 191 university centres of foreign affairs research, 107 depended primarily on Ford funding. The Ford Foundation also, for example, spent $45 million on its Foreign Area Fellowships Program through which a US-based area studies intellectual network was constructed in order to spread the influence of the programmes they had financed. The impact of Ford Fellowships has been noted by Beckmann: ‘[o]f the 984 former fellows, 550 hold faculty positions in 181 colleges and universities in 38 states.’ Beckmann further notes that ‘some 29 universities have employed ten or more [fellows]’ who, altogether, published 373 books, edited or contributed to 516 volumes, and over 3000 articles and monographs.[10]

Between 1934 and 1942, the Rockefeller Foundation contributed $1 million to the establishment of area studies at major American universities. Carnegie followed up with $2.5 million between 1947 and 1951. The Ford Foundation, however, between 1950 and 1973, contributed $278 million to area studies.[11

#18 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,429 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 28 December 2011 - 02:59 AM

its some highly reactive shit

#19 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,545 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:17 AM

explosive shit

#20 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,545 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:17 AM

shit storm

#21 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:19 AM

Implosive. I shat my mouth and pwnd it kamg'd ser lolpaulbot'd/ :undecided:

#22 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,429 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:37 AM

the trons and bots should have a turd burglaring contest for control of the empire

#23 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:38 AM

I'll tron bot yer face, ASS, face...shaaahhhhaaap. :lol:

#24 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,429 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:41 AM

:rolling:

#25 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,545 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:45 AM

:shit:

#26 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:50 AM

Reallt ser? total nans?

#27 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:51 AM

I no no, young walker. Discover he will shall. Next century.

#28 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,280 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 01:46 PM

Once all water has private ownership rights this technology should blossom. :wink:

#29 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 01:56 PM

It might take some extra input than just private property. But imagine a world where you fill your car "tank" with some water....every 10 years.
You fill your home heating/electric systems with water....every 10 years. (obviously Im making shit up, but that is exactly how things like this are discovered. It's all about keeping at it.) :smile:

#30 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,280 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 03:51 PM

Maybe I should start hanging around places like MIT? Ya think a scientist would be weird enough to marry me?

#31 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,545 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:15 PM

Once all water has private ownership rights this technology should blossom. :wink:


this will scare the crap out of ya



Maybe I should start hanging around places like MIT? Ya think a scientist would be weird enough to marry me?


i'd marry you, teo :mrgreen:

#32 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,280 posts

Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:25 PM

:ura1: :heart:

#33 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,967 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:09 AM

The Documentary
The title linked to is "War on Cold Fusion -- The Hidden Truth"
The actual title of the video is "Cold Fusion -- Fire from Water"
It was made / released in about 1999


I like that actual title better...it puts the focus more on the state
and status of Cold Fusion rather than on if it was being suppressed.

#34 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,967 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:20 AM

Scientific Community and Suppression of Ideas
We -- at least I -- would love to believe in a scientific community
that is totally rational; one that accepts or rejects ideas based only
upon a rational weighing of evidence.

Sadly, this is not the case. Science is done by people and people
are always influenced by biases -- most of which they don't even
know they have.

There are some encouraging points though...

* Built into science is a methodology that tends to route out
human bias. It is not perfect. It takes more time than we'd like.
But it's much better than almost any other organized human
system -- especially politics. Super especially religion.

* There is no single "ministry of science" from which all funding
flows or from which a final verdict is rendered. This is in start
contrast to most religions. One lab may be biased due to money
received from the US government. Another because of backing
by a particular corporation. But -- as this documentary shows
numerous times -- there is always another company, another
government, another loan scientist who has the will or the self
interest to pursue the truth.

So, rather than seeing this as an infuriating story of corruption,
greed, conspiracy, futility, or the suppression of ideas -- I took
it as an example that the truth always wins out.

Truth wins out -- by it's nature, it must.
Science, as flawed as it is, is often the surest route.

#35 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,967 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:42 AM

A Quick Side Track

It sure will be nice if Cold Fusion turns out to be true and if its
use can be made viable. But I'd like to point out that even without
it -- it's very likely that our energy and related pollution problems
can be solved without it.

Depending upon exactly how you figure it, more solar energy
hits the earth in one hour than humans use in one year.


Current solar cells convert this energy to electricity or to heat. New
technologies are being developed to use sunlight to directly split
water into hydrogen and oxygen.
http://www.scienceda...80217170412.htm

To be sure, there are numerous technological issues to be solved.
Hydrogen is difficult to store and transport. Getting solar cells cheap
enough to be viable is still a dream.

All I'm saying here is: Cold Fusion is not the only answer we have
for a future of clean and plentiful energy.


Posted Image
http://www.worldometers.info/

#36 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,967 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:50 AM

More on Renewable Energy

In the beginning of the documentary it states that (paraphrase) "The problem with renewable-
energy is reliance on favorable weather conditions and locations. This precludes them from being
the ultimate energy solution.”

This is a common criticism of solar and other renewables. I disagree.

The electricity grid can be setup to store energy in multiple locations and for
it to flow in any direction needed. I won't side-track more into that here,
but it's likely my documentary pick will be one that talks about this.

#37 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,967 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 29 December 2011 - 05:28 AM

Is "Cold Fusion" True? Is it viable?

I'm glad there are people researching it. It's wonderful that numerous
governments and many corporations large and small are backing
research into it. I'd love for it to be true -- that we can get heat
from a simple chemical reaction while feeding in nothing but water.

I just don't believe it. Here's why:


* After 22 years they still can't say how it works

Sure, there is no surefire time-line for discovery. Maybe it will take 100
years to perfect this system. But we're not back in the 1800s. We know
tremendous things about how chemical reactions work. We have amazing
tools to see into the atom. We have quantum theory (that has never yet
been wrong about any prediction it's made) to guide us.

And, despite the mood of this documentary -- the documentary clearly
shows that money, time, and brainpower have gone to trying to figure
out "Cold Fusion". If it hasn't happened in 22 years in this environment,
I doubt it will.

To be clear: There is a difference between getting something viable and
knowing HOW it operates. For example: I mentioned above about solar
cells (both electric generating and hydrogen generating). These have
been in the works for many years as well -- and are still for the most
part not viable. But that is different. Scientists are not still trying to
figure out HOW they work -- what the theory is. They are trying to
tweak them to get them to be economically viable.

This is NOT the situation with Cold Fusion.



* The results are non-repeatable / non-reproducible

The second documentary (What Happened to Cold Fusion) attempts to
address this issue (Part 1 @ 9:30) but it's not convincing to me. One of
the hallmarks of science (and the physical world) is that if it's true, its
reproducible.

Could it be that they just don't understand it yet -- so the reason it's not
reliably reproducible is because something is different each time?
Sure.

I think it's more likely that its not reproducible because the phenomenon is
not really happening and because the seemingly positive results are being
skewed or misinterpreted. -- Its not just establishment scientists that can
be unknowingly biased by what they want to be true.

#38 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,967 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 29 December 2011 - 05:33 AM

You Can't Disregard it Just Because it's a Crazy Idea

There are a couple comments in this thread and in the movie along the
lines of, "Hey, there were plenty of discoveries that were laughed at and
ridiculed...until they turned out to be true."

Yes, that could be the case with Cold Fusion.

But there are also plenty of crack-*** ideas that were called crack-***
ideas and that turned out to be...crack-*** ideas.

Just because the establishment is against something does not make it good, right, or true.

#39 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,456 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:15 AM

Can't help but recall something I watched somewhere along the line about the gentleman who succeeded in producing the first "long life" lithium batteries. Industry simply didn't want it. It would take away from resale of smaller batteries and smaller replacement electronic sales (buying new equipment justified by similar battery replacement cost) and omg, it may make an electric car more feasible!! Couldn't have that. If I recall correctly it was good 'ol General Motors that bought him out, lump sum, no future royalties and that's unfortunately too often how it works!

The other side of the coin is if you want money just show investors the potential of your idea as a weapon. Sad to say financial backing will be readily available.:sad:

#40 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:55 PM

There will always be doubters. It took first hand experience for me to see the potential.

The other side of the coin is if you want money just show investors the potential of your idea as a weapon. Sad to say financial backing will be readily available


For all we know this is already been happening. Which would explain a lot.

#41 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 02:04 PM

I just don't believe it. Here's why:


* After 22 years they still can't say how it works


It took well over 20 years to accomplish nuclear fusion as we know it and that was with the top scientists, the military and tons of gubmint funding to make that happen.

#42 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,545 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:44 PM

You Can't Disregard it Just Because it's a Crazy Idea

There are a couple comments in this thread and in the movie along the
lines of, "Hey, there were plenty of discoveries that were laughed at and
ridiculed...until they turned out to be true."

Yes, that could be the case with Cold Fusion.

But there are also plenty of crack-*** ideas that were called crack-***
ideas and that turned out to be...crack-*** ideas.

Just because the establishment is against something does not make it good, right, or true.


agreed, and the way that documentary was sequenced, encourages someone who already has a proclivity for conspiracy theories (um, I'll own that proclivity :undecided:), to see the critics of cold fusion as part of that conspiracy.

Though, I did not see the critics as conspirators out to squelch a free source of energy, I saw them as "conspirators" who may have been unwilling to challenge an existing paradigm (one that they feel comfortable working within - one that makes them feel safe). I feel the same about scientists who refuse to consider the possibility that the universe may not be random--that it seems to reveal an intelligent design.

But you address a key confusion of mine. I never know if what I'm watching is quackery or is something deemed quackery because someone in power wants us to believe that. And, since I'm not an expert on ANY of these issues, I really have trouble discerning between the two.

Hence, this club to vet out such issues :smile:

#43 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:53 PM

Though, I did not see the critics as conspirators out to squelch a free source of energy, I saw them as conspirators who may have been unwilling to challenge an existing paradigm (one that they feel comfortable working within - one that makes them feel safe).


Exactly, kris.

I don't see this documentary as conspiracy or theory of one. I see what happens on a regular basis in sciences. Pushing the boundaries will always receive push back from the established understanding. this is a case of that.

Chemists find a phenom they can not explain fully and label it fusion. Physicists step in, using their known understandings of nuclear reaction and show that in fact, what is occuring is not that reaction. A shit storm, a battle over budgets, knowns and unknowns ensues between physicists and a few chemists. It isn't some NWO conspiracy theory that has supressed breaking into the complete understanding of WHAT is happening within this reaction, how to replicate it consistently and then produce a commercial application. It's much simpler than that.

#44 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,545 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 09:08 PM

http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0226458083

#45 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 29 December 2011 - 09:18 PM

We revamp our understandings on a regular basis. That is a healthy outlook in my opinion. It is also healthy to have a heavy base for skepticism. The advances in quantum physics/mechanics for instance. We're still hashing it all out.

Throwing something away because we haven't nailed down what is at play, only does us a dis-service. Now, if we can be sure of what is happening in a given study and prove that it is not viable or worthy of continued study, then I would agree with Jab completely. "Cold fusion" does not meet the latter ctriteria. it is still a phenom and in that respect, should be given due diligence.

#46 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,967 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 30 December 2011 - 06:36 PM

People that still believe Cold Fusion is real should continue to work on it -- and they are. I hope they succeed; I just don't think they will.


It took well over 20 years to accomplish nuclear fusion as we know it and that was with the top scientists, the military and tons of gubmint funding to make that happen.


There is an important difference. Nuclear fusion (and fission) were know for certain
to be true; There was a theory to show how/why it worked and repeatable experiments proving those to be true. The 20 years and money was to get it into a useable box. That isn't' the case with Cold Fusion.


Throwing something away because we haven't nailed down what is at play, only does us a dis-service. Now, if we can be sure of what is happening in a given study and prove that it is not viable or worthy of continued study, then I would agree with Jab completely. "Cold fusion" does not meet the latter ctriteria. it is still a phenom and in that respect, should be given due diligence.


Agree totally.

So...If scientist X says she's getting "excess heat" from some experiments, but then can't repeat that experiment when under scrutiny, should they get more funding? If they just don't know what's happening, but can repeat it...YES, give 'em funding. But if they can't...at what point do you say, "This isn't working, there's nothing here?"

#47 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 06:52 PM

Before I answer. Jab, did you check out the updated lecture above?
It really shakes the ideas back up again. They have begun to understand what reaction is occuring and how to replicate it. It seems to be a touch more tricky than originally thought. Errors were made, assumptions were made adn ultimately, 500 theories developed. It got very convoluted.

Apparently there is a very specific reaction taking place when utilizing palladium cathodes of a distinct type. I'm certainly no expert in the field, so following along stumps me at times. but they are on to it. And could probably get a lot further down the road should forces join to figure it out. It got the black sheep treatment I feel, and will continue to follow its progression until it goes ka-blewy or we're working with commercial application.

#48 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 12:03 PM

Another update regarding this phenom.

LENR / COLD FUSION COMPETITOR APPROACHING PRODUCTION

By Dr. Mark D. Nispel | February 14, 2012
Defkalion, the Greek company that was at one time working with Rossi and his e-cat, has developed their own version of LENR power generation product. They will have 7 different scientific groups coming in to perform tests on the product in the upcoming weeks. They intend to enter production with the products within the year. These will be 5KW to 45KW units, suitable to be used in a home or building.
These products will generate and put off heat. In order to perform a cooling function or generate electricity someone else will have to do additional development work with this product to add on a heat pump or generator.

http://pesn.com/2012...in_Cold_Fusion/

In the academic / scientific space, MIT recently held a LENR seminar and demonstration:
http://energycatalyz...-studied-at-mit

And now CERN, the famous European physics research facility has announced a LENR seminar / discussion:
http://oilprice.com/...old-Fusion.html

All in all, progress continues. It is no longer career suicide to mention LENR / Cold Fusion research among scientists. So now that the thaw of the intellectual ice age has begun, LENR continues to approach commercial usefulness, and somewhat behind this, at least a beginning is being made to try and understand what exactly the phenomenon is that is being demonstrated.
Oh, and just to point out the futility of the brains in Washington on this matter, at least in the Department of Energy who supposedly is the Federal department in charge of things like, oh, energy: your tax dollars: $29B; spent on investigating this potentially market changing technology: $0

http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/

#49 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 12:06 PM

This is really coming to fruition which is exciting. Hopefully now that the intellectual ice age on this subject is starting to thaw, more prestigious chemists/physicists/engineers will look at the technology without worrying about their collegiate reputation among peers.:clapping:

#50 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 12:29 PM

http://www.forbes.co...of-cold-fusion/

2012: The Year of Cold Fusion?

Well, there goes 2011, a year that was, to say the least, a mixed bag.

In the tech world it has been an interesting year. The Large Hadron Collider has, so far, failed to find evidence of the Higgs Boson (boo!) but at least it didn’t, as some people had feared, create a black hole that swallowed the earth (hooray!). Biological research produced promising results regarding antiviral drugs that may cure the common cold (hooray!) but a cure for cancer and HIV stills seems a long way away (boo!).

Curiously over 2011 Silicon Valley has shown a powerful resurgence of energy and dynamism (hooray!) and with that some of the wild optimism that characterized the 90′s tech bubble has reappeared (hummm). Apple became a commercial monster (hummm) despite the passing of Steve Jobs (boo!) and the IT world also had a generally positive year (hooray!).

I could go on and on with boos and hoorays for pages but there’s one topic I want to focus on: Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer or “E-Cat” system that is, despite everything we know so far, still in limbo somewhere between Boo! and Hooray!

If this topic is new to you, the really short summary is that the E-Cat is a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) or “cold fusion” device that generates large amounts of heat for a miniscule cost.

I first wrote about the E-Cat and its implications in my Backspin column in Network World back in October and then again a couple of weeks later here in my Forbes Technobable blog. Since then I have covered various aspects of the topic in a number of follow-up columns; should you wish to peruse any of these, here’s the list:

Cheap power: An overnight revolution
Hello Cheap Energy, Hello Brave New World
Believing in Cold Fusion and the E-Cat
Waiting for Cold Fusion
National Instruments and Cold Fusion?
How to Make Cold Fusion Work: Use Unobtainium
Podcast: “E-Cat: Is it Cold Fusion or Hot Air?”
Why so many postings on this topic? Simple … as I pointed out at some length in the first columns, should Rossi’s E-Cat work as claimed, it will transform the world making oil, coal, and conventional nuclear power along with wind and solar power obsolete as energy sources.

Alas, despite a large amount of mainstream press coverage (most of it pretty uninformed and uninformative) and an incredible amount of blog coverage, the question of whether the E-Cat really works remains unproven because over the last year the E-Cat’s inventor, Andrea Rossi, has given a number of impressive but inconclusive demonstrations. These were inconclusive because they weren’t run in such a way as to remove doubt about what’s really going on and whether more energy was being generated by the E-Cat than was being put into it.

Read more at the link.