NASA CONFIRMS COLD FUSION

[mscoffman]

That's why LENR has so much scepticism about it. As a "low energy" nuclear reaction it does not fit accepted science.


CC


Chris
           I will say this .I believe in the E-Cat.But not in Hot Fusion its a Scam and a total Fraud
       They have been trying to create Hot Fusion since 1947 over 60 years and spending Billions
         of cash down the drain.Its a total con by the system they have to keep the budget going each
        year.I should know I worked as a engineer for years in the High energy physics game.

  Dave

I see this quote a lot, but to me this simply shows that the poster is unknowledgable
about the history of nuclear fusion...It takes a certain amount of time and money
to do certain specific things...Don't supply the money and you can't have the result.
For example if half the money needed for the Apollo program to reach the moon was
supplied rather then the full amount, there is an exceeding likelyhood that the attempt
to land a man on the moon would have then resulted in failure. It wouldn't have been a
fraud and it wouldn't mean you didn't know enough about science, you simply failed to
provide enough resources to support the attempt.

Hot fusion experimental history is littered with with projected intermediate goals
and successes. Scientist saying they needed to do something to support a goal
then they went out and did them. They now have a project ITOR that is
a Hot Fusion reactor that is designed to produce overunity energy gain, sans
backend electrical generation capacity, which they already know how to
do..How is that a fraud?

Has the U.S. government slowly expended the required resources to do the task?
No...everytime tokamak hot fusion gets close they begin pushing alternative hot
fusion technologies like the Rochester Inertial ignition, Livermore 193 Gigawatt
Lasers, and the Sandia Inertial Confinement (speaking of having a shrink problem).
That is not the way to have a least length path to solve the problem.

Fortunately there are other independent countires in the world and they don't
necessarily move in lock step with US government. They have funded ITOR and
it is slowly getting done. ITOR is a giant robotic thing that needs to reprocess
it containment walls to extract the tritium to keep it's fusion process going.
It is the large science path to guarantee an energy future sans hydrocarbon
and fission fuels.

Is it cost effective?, well it's better then weapons fuel derived fission reactors
we use today, which irradiate tons of heavy metal in their cores.

Will it cause competitive processes to be developed that are much better then it is?
Almost certainly. But finding a better way does not mean that the initial way was
illegally incorrect. It's a horse race to see what systems gets to market first. It is
almost certainly better then nuclear fission systems functioning under adverse
circumstances, as we now know today.

How on earth do you expect government funded experiment systems when they don't
fund the primary one correctly?


:S:MarkSCoffman

[firlight]

I see this quote a lot, but to me this simply shows that the poster is unknowledgable
about the history of nuclear fusion...It takes a certain amount of time and money
to do certain specific things...Don't supply the money and you can't have the result.
For example if half the money needed for the Apollo program to reach the moon was
supplied rather then the full amount, there is an exceeding likelyhood that the attempt
to land a man on the moon would have then resulted in failure. It wouldn't have been a
fraud and it wouldn't mean you didn't know enough about science, you simply failed to
provide enough resources to support the attempt.

Hot fusion experimental history is littered with with projected intermediate goals
and successes. Scientist saying they needed to do something to support a goal
then they went out and did them. They now have a project ITOR that is
a Hot Fusion reactor that is designed to produce overunity energy gain, sans
backend electrical generation capacity, which they already know how to
do..How is that a fraud?

Has the U.S. government slowly expended the required resources to do the task?
No...everytime tokamak hot fusion gets close they begin pushing alternative hot
fusion technologies like the Rochester Inertial ignition, Livermore 193 Gigawatt
Lasers, and the Sandia Inertial Confinement (speaking of having a shrink problem).
That is not the way to have a least length path to solve the problem.

Fortunately there are other independent countires in the world and they don't
necessarily move in lock step with US government. They have funded ITOR and
it is slowly getting done. ITOR is a giant robotic thing that needs to reprocess
it containment walls to extract the tritium to keep it's fusion process going.
It is the large science path to guarantee an energy future sans hydrocarbon
and fission fuels.

Is it cost effective?, well it's better then weapons fuel derived fission reactors
we use today, which irradiate tons of heavy metal in their cores.

Will it cause competitive processes to be developed that are much better then it is?
Almost certainly. But finding a better way does not mean that the initial way was
illegally incorrect. It's a horse race to see what systems gets to market first. It is
almost certainly better then nuclear fission systems functioning under adverse
circumstances, as we now know today.

How on earth do you expect government funded experiment systems when they don't
fund the primary one correctly?


:S:MarkSCoffman

Tweaked your button then,you should wake up and smell the coffee.You don`t sound like someone
who has worked in the Biz other wise you would get it.I urge you read "The Catt Concept"By Ivor Catt .Anyway I was replying to Chris not you.
Its Time to get out of your Pyjamas. 

Dave

[sm0ky2]

... the only way ......

CC

you should stop right there, and go back to study the scientific principal.


If "science" had already accepted any of these things, we would already be using them.
  Yes, i agree. historically, we havent known how to do this since..... some 1300+ yrs ago
and our combined 'modern knowledge' indicates that the only way we know how, is through a nuclear reaction, or a particle accelerator. However, a Lack of understanding of the process, does not mean that the title holds any more water.

When you excite a molecule beyond the bond strength of the atoms involved, there is a collapse, and associated release of energy, just as in the case of any atom or molecule that becomes excited and drops back down to a less energetic state. The difference here is, you now are also involving the difference in energy states between the relaxed atomic constituents, and the energy state they existed in as a pair[edit: molecule, ect].

Under the right conditions, this energy can far exceed the excitation energy, while simultaneously lowering the energy requirements for nuecleic absorbtion. It does not require large ammounts of energy, when the necleus is excited to a higher energy state. Think of it as being similar to thermal expansion.
The nucleus expands, and has more room to accept parts of another overly excited nucleus nearby.

There are some low levels of proton and neutron radiation that will occur, but nothing comparable to what we consider a nuclear reaction., in fact, less than that radiates from most of the known, unstable isotopes. Furthermore, the atomic structures that result from the reaction, are inherently stable, because of the low energy levels involved.

[CuriousChris]

@firlight
Of course fusion is real, just look at the sun (not literally), whether we can control it that's another question altogether. And I am 100% behind you about the billions wasted when the same money poured into other projects could have reaped significant rewards by now. Even if its another fusion reactor like the bussard wiffle ball (fired over 500 times) or Lawrencevilles  focus fusion or simple better safer nuclear reactors like the thorium reactor.

Whether LENR proves to be real or not we will have to wait and see. At my heart I am a sceptic, I do not believe in anything just because I wish it was true. Although I am often tempted down that way, Rossi almost got me.


@sm0ky
Are you implying as a race we knew how to convert one element to another some 1300 years ago and have forgotten it? Alchemy perhaps!

As far as a chemical or electrical reaction releasing enough energy to enable transmutation. I have not heard of any process that can do such. but I will freely admit chemistry is not my strong point. but I love research (now, not when I was younger) So I'd appreciate a link or 2 to some authoritative information on the subject. As far as I am aware and all the authoritative stuff I have read lately the only way we currently know how to do it is through fusion. So far LENR is not mainstream and so far unproven (rumours speculation and wild claims do not constitute proof), but if it is its still nuclear, unless they are mistaken about the nickel to copper transmutation. You are the only person I have ever heard who claims transmutation is not nuclear (nuclear means nucleus by the way, so any reaction involving the nucleus of an atom is nuclear). Perhaps I have just done my research in the wrong places.


CC

[sm0ky2]

@firlight

(nuclear means nucleus by the way, so any reaction involving the nucleus of an atom is nuclear). Perhaps I have just done my research in the wrong places.

CC

@ Chris
     
    as a general definition, i would probably have to agree with you, I think the point i was trying to make there was that, this is nothing like the standard nuclear reactions that we have come to know.
Using large ammounts of energy and brute force is not even whats going on here.

"transmutation" may be a outdated term, but the concept remains the same.

Each element is comprised of the exact same ingredients, just in differing ammounts.
They may take on completely different appearences, and have different 'physical properties'
but inside, they are all the same. We arent changing one thing into another, we are simply altering their ammounts. This is actually quite simple to do once you understand how the atomic structure communicates with itself, and other atoms around it.

Each element, each isotope, each molecular structure: resonates at a specific frequency, with respect to the conditions it exists in.

If we raise the energy level, the frequency lowers
If we lower the energy level, the frequency increases. This is directly related to the orbital period, and how many "handshakes" are taking place between the nucleus and the electron(s).

The electron inputs information from the environment, and translates this back to the nucleus, through these 'handshakes'. The nucleus, in turn, responds / reacts to changes in the environment, translating its response back to the electron(s), which then communicate that information back out to the environment.

If you change the frequency of one atom, so that it mimics another - it can freely couple with that atom to form a molecular structure. If you then change the frequency of this new molecule to a level that allows separation, this can occur.

There are an infinite nmber of other situations that can be caused by the same process.
   You can change the energy level of certain atoms, and cause them to absorb or emit particles.

During these processes, energy may be lost or gained, just as in any other chemical reaction.
  There are endothermic, exothermic, electrically + / - reactions, reactions that emit polarized, non-polarized magnetic fields, and all sorts of radiation, even light and radio and microwaves.
There may also be condition-specific nucleic collisions, implosions, explosions, and metastable isotopic energy gains.
If the excitation is controlled, we can place a substance, in a completely different elemental state.


We are approaching a point in technology, where we can litterally control the state of atoms,
through all posible elemental phase changes.
to put it short....
That machine on Star Trek that makes them their food ---  might not be that far fetched after all.


none of this is new, we're just gaining a new understanding of it.
    for instance, an electro-activated beta-emitter
we excite the atoms using an electrical signal, and it emits beta particles.
  this has been in use for decades.

Electrolysis - this (although massively inneficient in most cases) is a well established use of this same process. There are situations that can increase, or decrease our perspective energy level.
For instance, if you electrolyze aluminum oxide, in the presence of atomized iron
   it produces an endothermic reaction, creating exponentially more equivalent heat energy, than the electricity consumed. and the resultant components are aluminum oxide, and particulated iron residue.
which can be recycled back into the system.

There are litterally hundreds of examples of this throughout every field of science, the problem it appears is, that all of the Captains are asleep at the Helm, and nobody is noticing whats going on here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dont look at this in terms of 'atomic thresholds' - This is what science is accustom to doing,
overpowering the bonds, over-energizing the atom so that a specific situation occurs... This is barbarian,..
They're hammering square pegs into a round hole.....

  look at this from the perspective of coherent, harmonic wavelengths.
signals that communicate back and forth between one atom and another.
It doesnt take a large ammount of energy.
  We're talking on the order of electronvolts.
Atoms do this on their own from ambient energy.

If you adjust their frequencies, to make one compatible with the other, you can manipulate them.