ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 116 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry

American Antigravity

Chava Energy

Closeminded Science

EarthTech

Energy Science

Energy21

Innoplaza

Integrity Research Institute

Interstellar Technologies

JLN Labs

KeelyNet

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times

The Orion Proj.

Panacea-BOCAF

QVac_Eng

RexResearch

Science Hobbyist

Tom Bearden's Page

Unlimited electric energy

USPTO

Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
Alternative Energy News
KeelyNet_News
NextEnergyNews
PESWiki/News
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy2000
Free_Energy
Greenglow
JLNLabs
KeelyNet
NuEnergy
OverUnity
Sarfatti_Physics
Sweet-VTA
Tapten
Tomorrow-energy
Vortex
Magazine Sites
Distributed Energy
Electrifying Times
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine
radioioAmbient

The cold fusion horizon
Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2015 @ 16:12:33 EST by vlad

Testimonials Is cold fusion truly impossible, or is it just that no respectable scientist can risk their reputation working on it? by Huw Price

A few years ago, a physicist friend of mine made a joke on Facebook about the laws of physics being broken in Italy. He had two pieces of news in mind. One was a claim by a team at the Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (OPERA) in Gran Sasso, who said they’d discovered superluminal neutrinos. The other concerned Andrea Rossi, an engineer from Bologna, who claimed to have a cold fusion reactor producing commercially useful amounts of heat.

Why were these claims so improbable? The neutrinos challenged a fundamental principle of Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which says that nothing can travel faster than light. Meanwhile cold fusion (or LENR, for ‘low-energy nuclear reaction’) is the controversial idea that nuclear reactions similar to those in the Sun could, under certain conditions, also occur close to room temperature.


The latter was popularised in 1989 by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who claimed to have found evidence that such processes could take place in palladium loaded with deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). A few other physicists, including the late Sergio Focardi at Bologna, claimed similar effects with nickel and ordinary hydrogen. But most were highly skeptical, and the field subsequently gained, as Wikipedia puts it, ‘a reputation as pathological science’.

It turned out that my physicist friend and I disagreed about which of these unlikely claims was most credible. He thought it was the neutrinos, because the work had been done by respectable scientists rather than a lone engineer with a somewhat chequered past. I favoured Rossi, on grounds of the physics. Superluminal neutrinos would overturn a fundamental tenet of relativity, but all Rossi needed was a previously unnoticed channel to a reservoir of energy whose existence is not in doubt. We know that huge amounts of energy are locked up in metastable nuclear configurations, trapped like water behind a dam. There’s no known way to get useful access to it at low temperatures. But – so far as I knew – there was no ‘watertight’ argument that such methods were impossible....

More: https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-scientists-dismiss-the-possibility-of-cold-fusion

 
Login
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

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.

Related Links
· More about Testimonials
· News by vlad


Most read story about Testimonials:
Dr. Eugene Mallove is dead


Article Rating
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly


"The cold fusion horizon" | Login/Create an Account | 3 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: The cold fusion horizon (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, December 30, 2015 @ 13:45:57 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Of course, I should have known that my good friend Peter Gluck covered this paper in his EgoOut blog ( http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/ [egooutpeters.blogspot.ro]) when it came out. He's also highlighting some well worth reading reactions to this paper (here is a compilation below - please visit EgoOut regularly for much more):

Andrea Rossi
December 22nd, 2015 at 9:09 AM

Ing. Michelangelo De Meo:
Popular Mechanics is a leader magazine for technological divulgation in the USA and it is important their attention to our work. The article by Prof. Huw Price is a very intelligent analysis of the LENR situation and it is not a case that he is a Professor of Science Philosophy at the University of Cambridge. I think that to obtain the attention of such a Professor and the publication on such a magazine is an important achievement that has to be respected in the sole important way: to work, work, work to bring the products to a massive market. Until we will not have reached that goal, we will have done nothing really important. This also answers to the question of yours.
Update: stable the 1 MW E-Cat, fantastic the E-Cat X ( but still far from being a product).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
--------------

Comments to the Huw Price paper
https://aeon.co/conversations/should-scientists-risk-their-reputations-by-working-on-controversial-questions-such-as-cold-fusion

------------------
Echoes of the Huw Price paper: ) on long term much more important than they seem now)

IF THERE IS SOMETHING SCIENTISTS FEAR, IT IS TO BECOME LIKE PARIAHS


Cold Fusion and the reputation trap
http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/12/22/2126220/cold-fusion-and-the-reputation-trap
[science.slashdot.org]
On tribalism and cold fusion
http://www.miataturbo.net/insert-bs-here-4/tribalism-cold-fusion-87078/ [www.miataturbo.net]

Is cold fusion truly impossible...
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2015/12/is-cold-fusion-truly-impossible-or-is-it-just-that-no-respectable-scientist-can-risk-their-reputatio.html [www.3quarksdaily.com]

Diasussions on LENR Forum [www.lenr-forum.com] and E-Cat World [www.e-catworld.com]

This is a good post to finish 2015. Wishing all of you good health and a breakthrough year in new energy revolution in 2016! Vlad.




Study: Elite scientists can hold back science (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, December 30, 2015 @ 17:57:51 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com

Max Planck — the Nobel Prize–winning physicist who pioneered quantum theory — once said the following about scientific progress:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Shorter: Science is not immune to interpersonal bullshit. Scientists can be stubborn. They can use their gravitas to steamroll new ideas. Which means those new ideas often only prevail when older scientists die.

Recently, researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) released a working paper [www.nber.org] — titled, "Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?" — that puts Planck's principle to the test.

Sifting through citations in the PubMed database [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov], they found evidence that when a prominent researcher suddenly dies in an academic subfield, a period of new ideas and innovation follow...

Full article: http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2015/12/15/10219330/elite-scientists-hold-back-progress [www.vox.com]




1 MW E-Cat Plant Watch Thread [UPDATE #37 — ‘Troubles Resolved’] (Score: 1)
by vlad on Friday, January 29, 2016 @ 16:53:05 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
Via Dr. Peter Gluck's Ego Out LENR+ blog [egooutpeters.blogspot.ro]:

2)  1MW E-Cat Plant Watch Thread [UPDATE #36 — Test ‘Is Over,’ (Negative Result)]      
1 MW E-Cat Plant Watch Thread [UPDATE #37 — ‘Troubles Resolved’]


First the test was over, now the troubles (much better)




 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.