 |
There are currently, 186 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
BIG OIL DOE SMASHES COLD FUSION FOR SECOND TIME
Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 @ 20:51:32 UTC by vlad
|
|
Anonymous writes: "...Conclusion: While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review..."
Read the whole paper here: http://newenergytimes.com/DOE/DOE-CF-Final-120104.pdf
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: BIG OIL DOE SMASHES COLD FUSION FOR SECOND TIME (Score: 1)
by Sigma on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 @ 21:21:13 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | | And another one bites the dust! Whoever thought that this would actually be a successful review, must be fooling themselves. The fact that the reviewers are still looking for fusion based on a antiquated system shows us where science is these days. Is there a hope for Cold Fusion? There might be hope, but it will NEVER come from a federally, oil-based system. |
|
|
Re: BIG OIL DOE SMASHES COLD FUSION FOR SECOND TIME (Score: 1)
by pulsed_ignition on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 @ 21:56:18 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://diamondlube.com | Before you dismiss Cold Fusion again, reread Tom Clator's article on Plasma triggered Tritium. http://www.nde.lanl.gov/cf/tritweb.htm#abs
Do not be mislead by the term "Cold Fusion" - because the plasma skin temperature alone is over 11,000 degrees F with core temps many times higher. MIT knows this and reports same. Tritium does not get produced without Fusion of elements within the plasma, therefore it must be produced with Fusion. The main qualifier is Quantity of Tritium produced.
Exactly what type of radioactive gas my device produces is as yet unknown, but it like cold fusion is not supposed to do this. If the radioactive gas is an isotope of something, then my device is classified as a particle accelerator, as these will produce isotopes.
Best Regards,
Chris |
|
|
Re: BIG OIL DOE SMASHES COLD FUSION FOR SECOND TIME (Score: 1)
by Rob (rob@zpenergy.com) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 @ 23:19:01 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | | Too bad idiocy cannot be used for energy. Because it seems the most prevalent force to date. |
|
|
Re: BIG OIL DOE SMASHES COLD FUSION FOR SECOND TIME (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, December 02, 2004 @ 20:36:17 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | John Dering writes: The change will come [in my opinion] when the energy supply dwindles. No amount of hot air from Rush Limbaugh can change the fact that we are fighting for an energy supply that is destined to run out within 25 years. In fact with China and India going "online" that timeframe might be more like ten years. This assumes no other interference other interfering factors. ...
And LONG before the oil is runs the US economy will experience a series of increasing magnitude shock waves. At some point the developers and proponents of the real/viable alternative energy sources will have their chance. I foresee a time when small energy producing consortiums may rise up and begin supplementing the power grid on the local and metropolitan scale. Soon afterwards they will replace the fossil fuels [America's real worst chemical dependency problem is oil].
Cold fusion, sono-fusion, electrostatic accelerator beam fusion and magnetized target fusion [and probably many others I can not imagine] will emerge as the new energy paradigm. What the Haliburton's fear is the understanding that fusion [in it's many forms] can be done on a small scale. What would they do faced with unlimited energy for each small community using D from water and "burning" it in a cell about the size of a large water heater.
At SARA we are working on direct nuclear to electric conversion. Bypassing the intermediate water boiling steps.
-----Original Message-----
Subject: RE: Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
Richard,
The "gatekeepers" are just doing their job, and doing it well I might add. The question is, "are ALL the holes plugged?" The "game is rigged" and the stage is set.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: RCH
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:42 PM
Subject: Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
Bill,
You expected something different?
Haliburton MUST be maintained at ALL costs ... to the end of Cvilization, if required.
The tragedy here is that Gene Mallove is not around to expose this farce for what it is ....
Now, isn't THAT a sad "coincidence."
RCH
|
|
|
Re: BIG OIL DOE SMASHES COLD FUSION FOR SECOND TIME (Score: 1)
by Rothhaar on Saturday, December 04, 2004 @ 22:04:15 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Perhaps it's possible to view the 2004 DOE report on cold fusion in a less pessimistic light. Although it does state that its conclusions are SIMILAR to its 1989 report, it strikes me as a far less hostile and skeptical assessment. In truth, the 1989 report stopped just short of a wholesale dismissal. Here's part of its conclusion: "The Panel also concludes that some observations attributed to cold fusion are not yet invalidated. ... there remain unresolved issues which may have interesting implications. The Panel is, therefore, sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system. The Panel recommends that the cold fusion research efforts in the area of heat production focus primarily on confirming or disproving reports of excess heat. ... Cooperative experiments are encouraged to resolve some of the claims and counterclaims in calorimetry."
In 1989, the DOE wanted those scientists interested in cold fusion to concentrate on confirming whether or not there really is excess heat generated. Prove to us that this is real, they were saying. That was a fair request. They therefore had every right to be disappointed by the evidence presented to them in 2004. Would you say that the cold fusion evidence as described in the 2004 DOE report and in Sharon Weinberger's Washington Post article is conclusive? Frankly, it's discouraging that 15 years on, it's still impossible to reproduce the cold fusion effect with any consistency.
Here's part of the 2004 report conclusion: "The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review."
This is almost exactly what the DOE said in 1989. They're still saying, "prove it to us," and I can't really blame them. Of course, cold fusion researchers can complain about the Catch-22 situation they're in. They can't prove it without better funding and equipment, and they can't get better funding and equipment without the legitimacy that the DOE can bestow.
The 2004 DOE report appears to address this dilemma when is states: "Reviewers identified two areas where additional research could address specific issues. One is the investigation of the properties of deuterated metals including possible effects of alloying and dislocations. These studies should take advantage of the modern tools for material characterization. A second area of investigation is the use of state-of-the-art apparatus and techniques to search for fusion events in thin deuterated foils."
It seems to me that you don't urge access to "modern tools" and "state-of-the art apparatus" for something that you consider hogwash. Nor do you do so without the expectation that access to such tools will be made available. It's subtle, but my impression is that the DOE has indeed bestowed a measure of legitimacy to cold fusion research. My impression is strengthened by this concluding remark: "The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals." To me, this is an invitation to join the club of serious, mainstream researchers and could go a long way towards removing the ridicule factor long associated with the field. Nothing as inviting exists in the 1989 report.
Another sign of moderation in the DOE position is the revelation that a large portion of its review panel was very impressed by the evidence it saw. Nothing that encouraging is mentioned in the 1989 report. This one segment particularly struck me: "Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic."
Half of the reviewers found the evidence for excess power compelling? That was certainly not the case 15 years ago, so here again is a sign that the ice of illegitimacy is melting.
It's too simplistic to view events through the prism of conspiracy. Did some of the 2004 reviewers who panned the cold fusion evidence take that position for political reasons? Maybe. But they wouldn't have been able to do so if the evidence had been stronger. Put yourself in the DOE's shoes and keep in mind that with cold fusion we are basically talking about free energy - the ultimate disruptive technology that turns the world economy on its head and launches a second industrial revolution. If you were in charge of the DOE, how comfortable would you be - based on the existing cold fusion evidence - in initiating all the turmoil, acrimony, and excitement that an endorsement of the technology would produce? The simple fact is that the evidence for cold fusion is not yet strong enough to warrant an unequivocal DOE endorsement. Perhaps, though, they've made it possible for the evidence to become strong enough.
- Rothhaar |
|
|
|
|
