Subscription Center
Mar 23, 2009 11:31 PM | 28
.jpg)
Is the science community warming to cold fusion? It's been 20 years to the day since Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, electrochemists at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, announced the discovery of what they believed to be "cold fusion" (now often referred to as low-energy nuclear reactions, or LENR), a room-temperature nuclear reaction that reportedly generated an unexplained amount of heat. The pronouncement spawned a flurry of excitement about a new renewable energy source, but enthusiasm quickly waned after the result wasn't satisfactorily replicated. Today at the American Chemical Society's national meeting in the very same city, researchers are recapping recent developments in the field – including images of what some believe are telltale signs of reaction-born subatomic particles, as well as documentation of heat, helium, gamma rays and other products from possible low-energy nuclear reactions.
"We have been working for … years to know what kinds of questions to address," one of the presenters Antonella De Ninno, a scientist at the New Technolgies Energy and Environment in Italy, said in a statement. "After long term and intensive research, we found ourselves able to give a reasonable … explanation."
One team, led by Pamela Mosier-Boss, an analytical chemist at the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, has announced visual evidence of a fusion-like reaction. "If you have fusion going on, then you have to have neutrons," Mosier-Boss said in a statement. “People have always asked 'Where's the neutrons,'" she said, and in their presentation, they reported finding evidence of these neurons. By exposing a special kind of plastic to the reaction, patterns of minute dents (or "triple tracks" that show three close nearby forms) were made by excited neutrons created from a nuclear reaction, they report.
In other signs of fusion, Tadahiko Mizuno, an assistant professor in the department of nuclear engineering at Hokkadio University in Japan, reports having detected gamma radiation and De Ninno notes the production of helium gas in experiments; both are possible byproducts of a nuclear LENR reaction.
The hope of LENR is to replicate the powerful energy generation that occurs in stars such as our sun, but to do so at a much cooler temperature. If successful, it could provide a nearly infinite supply of clean energy here on Earth. But many remain skeptical, including the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). After reviewing a July report by LENR researchers, the DOE said the evidence "did not conclusively demonstrate the occurrence of cold fusion." DOE recommended research continue, but even its tempered response and skepticism in the scientific community has done little to quell the enthusiasm of researchers.
"The solution of the global warming issue… energy problems, and carbon dioxide can be expected," Mizuno said in a statement, "by putting this nuclear reaction and the energy generation device to practical use." In the meantime, even the already-demonstrated hot fusion waits for its turn in the sun, as work on the collaborative international ITER thermonuclear fusion reactor project crawls along.
Image courtesy of duncan1890 via iStockphoto
Tags:
fusion
More News Blog:
Next: Who will manage the smart energy grid when it finally arrives?
Previous: Scrubbing the pollutants spouted by oceangoing ships' smokestacks
See what we're tweeting about
mbattaglia53 Off-planet road trips--The Mars rover Opportunity recently set a distance record for off-planet driving… http://t.co/hEKhtoGpDe
DNLee5 Meet Your Mites http://t.co/c4FSQglxR5 << these are mine. eww! but neat!... http://t.co/LBB8KDhBHG
David_Bressan May 21, 1799:: Birthday of fossilist Mary Anning http://t.co/QY3x9HCzfU & here a rock-song dedicated to her http://t.co/8U2ybw6LLb
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
28 Comments
Add CommentHmmm....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be nice to harness a cooler alternative to the seemingly volatile nuclear energy that we all know and love, but alas, I feel that it is as illusive as that satisfying sensation one gets after a fine bowl of cold soup.
I've yet to experience it, and I very much doubt that I ever will.
Much to my wife's dismay.
Cold fusion, if it ever works, will not be a "cooler alternative to seemingly volatile nuclear enegry". It will generate energetic particles just like nuclear fission reactors (maybe to a lesser extent), requiring heavy shielding etc. It will probably not be any safer either. What it will provide is a cheaper less polluting source of energy. Cold fusion reactors, if they are ever developed, could power interstellar spacecraft, extending our reach in to space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes quantum theory allow for a small number of extraordinarily energetic states of the nucleus that could generate results like this without promising controllable processes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a more revealing article on the problems faced by cold fusion researchers here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.groundreport.com/Arts_and_Culture/The-ghost-of-free-energy
Mainstream scientists should forget their grievances from 1989 and treat cold fusion (or "LENR" or "CANR" or whatever you want to call it) as the legitimate field that it is.
You wrote that cold fusion "wasn't satisfactorily replicated." That is incorrect. Cold fusion was replicated thousands of times in over 200 laboratories such as Los Alamos and BARC, and these replications were described in 3,000 papers, including about 1,000 peer-reviewed papers in 60 mainstream journals such as J. Electroanal. Chem. Many of these experiments are at very high signal to noise ratios.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only scientific standard of "satisfaction" in a replication is whether it has been done many times in different labs, at high s/n ratios, and whether the work passes peer-review. By this standard, cold fusion is real. I do not know what standard you are applying, but it is not a valid scientific metric.
You will find a list of 3,000 papers on cold fusion and full text of 500 papers here:
http://lenr-canr.org/
Runesmith wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Cold fusion, if it ever works, will not be a "cooler alternative to seemingly volatile nuclear enegry". It will generate energetic particles just like nuclear fission reactors (maybe to a lesser extent), requiring heavy shielding etc. It will probably not be any safer either. . . ."
That is incorrect. Cold fusion cells have produced as much as 100 W continuously for weeks, but they produced no penetrating radiation and no dangerous byproducts except tritium, which can be contained. Your assertion appears to be based on plasma fusion theory. This does not apply to cold fusion, for reasons still unknown. It is an experimentally proven fact that cold fusion is safe. This has been shown in hundreds of laboratories, and thousands of tests. Roughly 2000 researchers have observed the cold fusion effect at levels that would produce fatal doses of radiation if cold fusion worked the same way plasma fusion does. In other words, if you were correct, they would be dead.
Cold fusion is based entirely on experiment, not theory. It is fundamental to the scientific method that when theory conflicts with replicated experimental evidence, the experiments always win, and theory always loses.
Prof. Paul Padley's (Rice University) criticism of the Mosier-Boss work in a Houston Chronicle news story was correct: they failed to provide any believable theoretical explanation of how a fusion process could occur in condensed matter systems under such experimental conditions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Prof. Frank Close’s BBC story comments, he said that, "Nothing's really changed in 20 years. I'm not at all surprised that something is being said today. " You may be interested to know that something actually has changed ---- we have developed a theoretical explanation for the numerous anomalies that have been uncovered in LENR experiments over the past 20 years, and it does not involve any sort of fusion or exotic 'new' physics. Furthermore, LENRs did not begin with Pons & Fleischmann in 1989 --- we have uncovered evidence in published peer-reviewed literature that heretofore unexplained, anomalous LENR-related phenomena have been seen episodically in certain types of experiments for at least 100 years.
Further down below there are titles and URLs to our seven theoretical publications on LENRs, beginning with our peer-reviewed EPJC publication in March 2006.
In our theory, surmounting a high Coulomb barrier is a non-issue. As shown in our papers, LENRs in condensed matter systems do not involve any kind of Coulomb barrier-penetrating fusion, i.e., deuterium-deuterium, D-T, hot, "cold," warm, or otherwise.
None of our work includes the assumption of any new microscopic physics. What is novel about our new theoretical approach to LENRs is that, for the first time, we extend many-body collective effects to existing electroweak theory within the overall framework of the Standard Model. In a total of seven technical publications, we have developed a foundational theory of LENRs that weaves together all of the previously disparate threads of varied experimental evidence into a coherent whole. We have done so using rigorous, established, well-accepted physics.
In our view, the Widom-Larsen theory can explain all of the good experimental data in LENRs. Pons & Fleischmann were correct about excess heat being a real physical effect, albeit poorly reproducible because they were completely wrong on the underlying mechanism and had no appreciation whatsoever of crucial nanoscale device fabrication issues that are in the process of being solved by our company today. However, P&F were dead wrong about it being strong interaction, Coulomb barrier-penetrating D-D fusion that was producing the observed 'excess' heat. Unbeknownst to anyone back in 1989 and many people today, P&F's experimental results were actually the result of condensed matter collective effects and weak interactions.
Down below, I have also provided a URL to a public-domain MS-PowerPoint presentation (24 slides) that we have uploaded for online viewing to the SlideShare website. It provides a brief historical and technical overview of LENRs as seen through the 'lens' of our theory.
You may wish to start by reading the October 2008 Primer arXiv paper; it briefly reviews and summarizes key concepts in our six previous papers with less mathematical formalism. We wrote it hoping to entice readers to take the time needed to delve into the intricate details of the mathematics and physics contained in our earlier papers.
For a concise overview, you may wish to first examine a public online MS-PowerPoint presentation as follows:
Posted February 14, 2009 (24 slides):
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llchigh-level-historical-and-technical-overview-of-lenrsfeb-14-2009
1. "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces", Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107 (2006 - arXiv in May 2005)
http://www.newenergytimes.com/Library/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf
2. "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" (Sept 2005) Widom and Larsen
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0509/0509269v1.pdf
3. "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" (Feb 2006) Widom and Larsen
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0602/0602472v1.pdf
4. "Theoretical Standard Model Rates of Proton to Neutron Conversions Near Metallic Hydride Surfaces" (Sep 2007) Widom and Larsen
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nucl-th/pdf/0608/0608059v2.pdf
5. "Energetic Electrons and Nuclear Transmutations in Exploding Wires" (Sept 2007) Widom, Srivastava, and Larsen
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0709.1222v1.pdf
6. "High Energy Particles in the Solar Corona" (April 2008) Widom, Srivastava, and Larsen
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.2647v1.pdf
7. "Primer for Electro-Weak Induced Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" (Oct 2008) Srivastava, Widom, and Larsen
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0810/0810.0159v1.pdf
This is the same band of fusion nuts that have been pushing the same bullcrap for years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will believe cold fusion is real when it will boil and egg and toast some bread for me in the morning.
Built one that works! Patent 6,248,221.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo... I should expect this to hit the markets some time soon? Can I expect a jet vehicle that has a turbine that runs off of cold fusion some time in the near future, like a couple damned months!? I mean, geez, the rest of the technology already exists in the form of the batmobile and all...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this....eh, more like a Cloud Fusion Generator, for generating clouds in a jar, and a Soundscapes CD. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFvzohuVew
I mean, the steam isn't even superheated and the reaction is too slow to even turn a turbine (all signs there is no real atomic fusion occuring) lol, and now this Obama Administration Alternative Energy PR stunt with "the Navy neutrons"....I'll bet this is just cloud fusion in a higher volage fusor is all :P
Click the following links to see videos with researchers reporting the developments of LENR during the ACS National Meeting
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1289320
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1289427
Heinrich Hora (h.hora@unsw.edu.au)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main problem for reproducing cold fusion is the fact that the tiny reactions need weeks to be observed because these are interactions where nuclei react at 500 times larger distances than in usual nuclear reactions and the reaction probabilities are given as long as per 10.000 seconds and more. But the observation that the local maxima of the large minimum of generation probability of nuclei are of the same Maruhn-Greiner type as in uranium fission [J. Fusion Energy 26, 349-354 (2007) & 27, 355 (2008)] shown in G.H. Mileys et al. fully reproducible experiments is a clear proof of LENR.
Since it is a desire for clean energy production without carbon dioxide emission, it should be mentioned that lasers are at a new breakthrough. This does not only refer to the next months experiments at the NIF laser at Livermore where for the very first time in history the controlled ignition of fusion on earth is going to be demonstrated. Alternatively, there is the beginning to explore the possibility to produce fusion energy without any nuclear radiation hazards. This is energy generation with less radioactivity than from burning coal (because of its 2ppm contents of uranium). The new scheme of nonlinear force driven laser side-on ignition of uncompressed hydrogen-boron has been shown to be only about 10 times more difficult than using deuterium-tritium. The laser pulses of picoseconds duration and few dozens of petawatt power are now available (web-prepublication: N. Azizi et al., Laser and Particle Beams No. 2, 2009, doi: 10.1017/S0263034609000263 of Cambridge Univ. Press).
Heinrich Hora (h.hora@unsw.edu.au)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main problem for reproducing cold fusion is the fact that the tiny reactions need weeks to be observed because these are interactions where nuclei react at 500 times larger distances than in usual nuclear reactions and the reaction probabilities are given as long as per 10.000 seconds and more. But the observation that the local maxima of the large minimum of generation probability of nuclei are of the same Maruhn-Greiner type as in uranium fission [J. Fusion Energy 26, 349-354 (2007) & 27, 355 (2008)] – shown in G.H. Miley’s et al. fully reproducible experiments – is a clear proof of LENR.
Since it is a desire for clean energy production without carbon dioxide emission, it should be mentioned that lasers are at a new breakthrough. This does not only refer to the next months experiments at the NIF laser at Livermore where for the very first time in history the controlled ignition of fusion on earth is going to be demonstrated. Alternatively, there is the beginning to explore the possibility to produce fusion energy without any nuclear radiation hazards. This is energy generation with less radioactivity than from burning coal (because of its 2ppm contents of uranium). The new scheme of nonlinear force driven laser side-on ignition of uncompressed hydrogen-boron has been shown to be only about 10 times more difficult than using deuterium-tritium. The laser pulses of picoseconds duration and few dozens of petawatt power are now available (web-prepublication: N. Azizi et al., Laser and Particle Beams No. 2, 2009, doi: 10.1017/S0263034609000263 of Cambridge Univ. Press).
I think this is a brillant discovery. We should spend the stimulus money on this kind of research. The new energy revolution! Sort of like the industrial revolution 100 years ago. Pamela Mosier-Boss should get the nobel prize for having the fortitude to stick to this kind of research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe success of Cold Fusion not only has huge implications on our energy future, but it also has huge implications in enabling terrorists to make virtually undetectable NUCLEAR BOMBS and hence threat our home land SECURITY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou MUST read this to understand both the GOOD and the DANGER:
http://tinyurl.com/ddfdvy
Make sure you buy some palladium metal for an investment opportunity of a lifetime. Also buy some SWC stocks.
I have spoken about cold fusion here before. Now I see that there is some real excitng news. I think this is just the start and there is more to come.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI came across a process called SuperWave Fusion. The company behind it says they have produced excess heat and 2 independent labs have replicated the process. Plus the NRL is involved as well. I would like to hear what others think of this process. Their website is EnergeticsTechnologies.com
I don't mean to be a jerk, but in paragraph three, line four, you left out a "t" in "neutron." But I have to say, the idea of floating neurons makes me laugh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, I think the DOE should give a little bit of funding to this group. True, it's not definitive proof. However, this is hope. Hope that we could actually get cold fusion. While it may not work in the end, either way, it is money well spent. We must try. Look at so many great scientists and theorists. Many were thrown by the wayside. But they tried anyway.
“People have always asked 'Where's the neutrons,'" she said, and in their presentation, they reported finding evidence of these neurons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are nerve cells doing in a cold fusion reactor?
When I studied atomic energy in jr. high "hot" plasma fusion would be the power source of the future. in 20 to 30 years. 50 years later in spite of many $billion's and intense effort it's now 50 years in the future. In 1958 it was clear that useful plasma fusion was not likely. Plasma fusion is a contridiction of terms. The last thing plasma want's to do is fuse. It takes density, energy,(temp.) and pressure to get fusion, all nearly impossible to get for any length of time with plasma, and if you do get fusion you get a fire storm of high energy neutron radiation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this20 years ago I heard of "cold" fusion and went back to old charts on density,energy and pressure for fusion. Cool liquid, EMF packing into a catalitic crystal structure and Wow! this could work and no high energy neutron fire storm.
After 20 years of derision, and little funds it appears that it may be the real thing. But we need a better under standing of real atom construction and in particular neutron creation and decay.
Neutrons are hydrogen atoms and their change back and forth is the source of atomic energy, not matter conversion, MASS CHANGE!!
E=Mass (not matter)conversion, times volumn of hydrogen atom @speed of light. (the change in volumn is quite large)
E=MC2 is a nice bit of short hand but is not entirely correct, and gives the wrong impression of the facts,
I expect "cold" fusion to be usable long before "hot"fusion is.
Wouldn't it be great if this would finally work out!? I still remember quite vividly when the Fleischman/ Pons results came in the news. I was driving on the Autobahn and almost crashed, because I became so excited. And later it was such a letdown when their results proved to be bogus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis time I became excited again and got hold of the article in "Naturwissenschaften" right when I read about it. But what can I say? The work is so bad and amateur like that I don't even know how it became published in the first place. Of course Naturwissenschaften is not Science or Nature in the first place but still...
If you read the paper you will miss the most basic facts concerning the experiments they did. No comparisons of neutron track densities in different set-ups, no statisitical analysis what density of fake "triple tracks" you may expect just from overlapping single tracks. Etc. etc. Instead they go on and on how they focus their microscope to learn more about the tracks they etched into their plastic sheets.
I would not have accepted this kind of work from a graduate student. This is so sad...
I still hope that there may be something in it. After all, strange things happen in solids. Just take superconductivity. Electrons are attracted to each other through lattice interaction. High temperatrure superconductuvivty is still not fully understood and just recently new experimental results were found that make the filed even more mysterious. So why shouldn't a metal lattice lead D+ nuclei to get really close to each other somehow?
So PLEASE can't a bunch of professionals visit the guys and gals in Salt Lake and get them up to speed!?
Theoretically cold fusion is impossible according to the principles of Quantum Mechanics, the reason why the physicists refuse to accept the occurrence of the phenomenon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe nuclear chemist Mitch Andre Garcia showed by very easy calculations that cold fusion occurrence is theoretically impossible, from the laws of Quantum Mechanics, in a Chemistry Blog where he is the administrator.
However cold fusion is theoretically impossible because Quantum Mechanics does not consider the zitterbewegung (zbw) as a helical trajectory of the electron (the zitterbewegung appears in the Dirac equation of the electron, but the quantum physicists did not interpret the zbw as a helical trajectory).
By interpreting the zitterbewegung from a new viewpoint, by considering it as a helical trajectory of the electron, cold fusion becomes theoreticall possible, as Guglinski has shown to Mitch Andre Garcia, along a discussion in the topic “THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COLD FUSION AND COLD FUSION”, which can be seen in the link:
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0
Look at the Guglinski’s « Reply #8 on: September 24, 2007 ».
So the chemists are now getting knowledge that cold fusion is theoretically possible thanks to the adoption of the new interpretation for the zitterbewegung, and they are undertaking the performance of cold fusion experiments, because it seems that they dont trust in the viewpoint of the physicists.
Clearly, there is a dispute “CHEMISTS vs PHYSICISTS”, and it seems that the controversy on cold fusion will be finally resolved, but not by the physicists.
The new duel chemists vs physicists has ideological origin. The physicits keep their loyalty to Quantum Mechanics, because they dont accept to change their interpretation on the zitterbewegung, since such a changing requires a very deep modification in the foundations of Modern Physics (the zbw cannot be considered as a helical trajetory in Quantum Field Theory, which is the successor of Quantum Mechanics).
Unlike, the chemists keep their loyalty to the scientific method, according to which any experiment cannot be neglected only because it defies the principles of a theory, as happens now in this duel between Quantum Mechanics and cold fusion.
Such new participation of chemists is healthy to science’s develolpment. Because as the physicists have some dogmas which they consider unsourmantable (as for instance their interpretation of the zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory), the development of cold fusion requires scientists free of dogmas of Physics, as the chemists.
In few words, we have to consider the following situation:
1- as cold fusion is impossible by considering the interpretation of zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory...
2- ... but as the experiments prove that cold fusion really occurs, as confirmed now by the experiments made in the US Navy...
3- ... then there is need to change the interpretation on the zitterbewegung (a new alternative that chemists probably will take in consideration starting from now)...
4- ... instead of neglecting the cold fusion experiments (as the physicists insist to do).
GUGLINSKI'S NEW THEORY EXPLAINS COLD FUSION
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased on the new nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory, a new theory is proposed to explain the results obtained by Pamela Mosier-Boss cold fusion experiment, published in last March.
See the article in Peswiki:
How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_zitterbewegung_contributes_for_cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment
GUGLINSKI'S NEW THEORY EXPLAINS COLD FUSION
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased on the new nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory, a new theory is proposed to explain the results obtained by Pamela Mosier-Boss cold fusion experiment, published in last March.
See the article in Peswiki:
How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_zitterbewegung_contributes_for_cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment
GUGLINSKI’S THEORY ON COLD FUSION CAN BE TESTED
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn email was sent to Pamela Mosier-Boss in 11 April 2009, suggesting to use an oscillator in her experiment.
The email is ahead.
From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 3:46:25 PM
To: pam.boss@navy.mil
Cc: m_bernstein@acs.org; David Hestenes (hestenes@asu.edu); EDEL PONS (canmarrai@gmail.com)
Dear Pamela
My theory can be tested by your experiment.
My idea is to use an oscillator capable to increase the oscillatory motion of the molecules D-D within the Pd lattice, by stimulating the resonance D-D.
If you succeed to stimulate the resonance D-D , we have to expect a growth in the rate of fusion D-D and also in the rate of neutrons emission by unity of time.
The oscillator I suggest is the following:
1- A glass buble is fulfilled by heavy hydrogen (D-D molecules).
The buble must be placed close to the Pd lattice deposited in the cathode.
2- Two electrodes are connected inside the buble.
3- A high voltage is applied to the electrodes, producing an electric discharge that crosses the gas of molecules D-D.
4- The molecules D-D into the buble are excited, and they emit photons in a frequency which is a sub-multiple of the frequency oscillation of the molecules D-D that fulfill the Pd lattice.
5- The molecules D-D within the Pd lattice get resonance with the frequency of emission by the D-D molecules into the buble, and the oscillation of D-D within Pd is stimulated to increase its amplitude.
6- I suppose such stimulation of resonance may increase the velocity of D-D fusion within the Pd lattice.
A SECOND ALTERNATIVE:
You can use a laser that hits the molecules D-D within the glass buble, instead of using an electrical discharge.
A THIRD ALTERNATIVE:
The best would be to build a laser which emission is produced by D-D molecules. In such case there is no need to have a glass buble, because the laser would be applied directly to the region of Pd lattice.
Perhaps you have to try the three alternatives.
It’s my opinion you should have to try it.
After all, we are in front to a new Physics, and we have to try any new idea if it makes sense.
Good luck in your attempt, if you decide to do it.
Regards
Wladimir Guglinski
HAHAHAHAHA---LIKE ANY-BODY WHO READs THIS ACTUAL-LY UNDERSTANDs QUANTUM-MECHANICs ??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWELL, PERHAPs SOME-BODY HERE DOES: IF SO, MORE POWER TO HIM/HER !!
In 1989 Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet wrote 'Fission and Fusion: Symbols of the Old World and the New' in response to the 1989 'discovery' of cold fusion. It is still quite interesting in terms of understanding the need/evolutionary imperative for developing Fusion as a clean energy source for our use on this planet. Here's a link to an intro to and pdf of the article: http://circumsolatious.blogspot.com/2010/01/old-consciousness-in-contrast-to-new.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all need an update about LENR. There are so many credible scientists, researchers and organizations reporting excess heat, transmutations, neutrons, gammas and other indications of (cold) nuclear processes that it is difficult to believe they are all wrong. Just a quick Google search of LENR NASA turns up very positive (video) declarations by top notch people and organizations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a long listing of research papers and articles about LENR see:
http://www.iscmns.org/library.htm
EnergyIndependence-Rob