 |
There are currently, 249 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Chukanov was part of the Cold fusion research team at University of Utah (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 @ 21:37:18 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | From the free_energy yahoo group:
Angelina Chukanov wrote:
Dear Sir, and all concerned,
Technology of Cold Fusion is so symple, why wait 10 years in order to harness it? Already 15 years passed since the beggining of Cold Fusion hysteria and still there is no working CF generator. Why? Because science and technology based on this science is not a field for "Believe it or not". Science is not a religion - everything must be prouved in theoretical and practical aspect. I absolutelly disagree with the "King" of this web-site that the theory is not important in harnessing of new phenomena. On a contrary, the right theoretical model helps researcher to find the right way for harnessing this, unknown by the present moment, new phenomena..
I worked on the Cold fusion problem(in a professional way- every day only cold fusion, with good specialists and good equipment) for about two years. Gas loading technology, electrolysis, different metals and alloys, heavy and light hydrogen, etc. Finally, nothing positive which prouves the reality of Cold Fusion. Martin Fleishmann told journalists,after the cold fusion fiasco in France :"I will never return to cold fusion research". Steve Jones, another inventor of cold fusion, sometimes say that cold fusion is real, sometimes(more often) - cold fusion is not real. Can you believe such a "high credibility" person?
A friend of mine, a good researcher from California, told me a year ago: " In Navy they use cold fusion". I don't believe him, if Navy they use cold fusion in practical way, why not in the scale of whole country?
Controlled,or directed, thermonuclear fusion(synthesis) was another Great Show in Fusion hysterya last century. Hot and Cold fusion are twins-brothers of controlled fusion. Experiments aiming at establishing a controlled fusion of heavy hydrogen have been conducted for about halve a century A great deal of material and the talents of very bright physisists and engineers have been engaged in this quest, yet still without final satisfactory results. This frustrating fact cannot help but give rise to a suspicious that the problem is technically insoluble. It is unusual for a new idea not to receive practical applications within five years or less. The first atomic bomb was constructed and exploded six years after discovery of uranium decay, and the first atomic nuclear plant began operations shortly thereafter. The first thermonuclear(hydrogen) bomb exploded in 1957, yet the first thermonuclear power plant has yet to be built. What is the reason for this gap between knowledge and application? Is there a practical/technical obstructions, or has something been misenunderstood about the theotetical model? In my first book, part of my General Mechanics I explained this problem. The problem is that in high temperature plasma(about tens of millions degrees centigrades), the stability of plasma is controlled mostly by the expansion(in fact explosion) of the space occupied by the very hot nuclear plasma. Contemporary science doesn' know this fact. It is impossible to create an electromagnets able to stop this unstability of the plasma. I.e., the problem is technically insoluble.
Controlled Hot and Cold Fusion are in principle theoretically possible, but they are technically impossible. Some bursts of fusion neutrons or others nuclear byproducts are possible, but sustained, economically efficient, fusion process is IMPOSSIBLE. The same is valid for Cold Fusion. I'll try to be brief. The heat effect in cold fusion is due mostly to the effect of collapsing of the space occupied by hydrogen gas. Some bursts of fusion neutrons are possible, but they produce insignificant amount of energy. If the process in reversed- gas deloading from the samples or stop the electolysis, the samples cool down. Total "cold fusion" energy is allways ZERO. If, for some reason(which never happens) all energy is due to the fiusion process, then the amount of fusion neutrons will be so big,so these neutrons will damage or destroy the sample(palladium, nickel, SmCo5 alloy,etc.) very shortly after that. It is impossible to create a stable ,reliable and economically efficient cold fusion process. Most likely next few years we will be witnesses of next stupid spending of money and scientific effort in this losing energy quest.
Look on pictures presented in my web-site: www.chukanovenergy.com. On these pictures you can see a little sun created by Quantum Free Energy process The same happens in our Sun - Quantum Energy is the source of energy of our star, nuclear energy accounts for little part of total energy in stars. Quantum Energy is the future, not ZPE, Cold Fusion, or all electromagnetic free energy devices.
Oil companies are not interested in changing the chemical energfy(oil, gas) by some other energy source for they will lose a huge business. My work on Quantum Energy is monitored by some oil companies in order to stop the practical use of this energy source without fuel. My work is also monitored by some forein intellegeces from Germany,France,Russia and Pakistan At the same time, CIA and DOE don't care too much about my invention. The same was with the treat from the fundamentalist islamic terrorists before Sept.11. QE bomd can be created very easy and transported(in truck) to any big city in USA. The power of such a divice can be hundreds of times more powerful than any nuclear bomb. Unfortunatelly, American scientists-advisors to the US government are very limited people.
Best regards, Dr. Kiril Chukanov.
p.s. For more information snd me an E-mails, phone calls, letters,or visite my lab in Salt Lake City. All are welcome in my house and lab.
|
| Parent |
|
|
|
