"I created an effective and reliable cold fusion reactor using a 2000 watt variable transformer (variac), a full-wave bridge rectifier rated for 400 volts/40 amps, and a homemade reactor vessel (consisting of a W cathode (1 mm diameter), a stainless steel anode, and a sodium bicarbonate solution). The plasma electrolysis provides the perfect environment (if prepared correctly) to start and sustain a nuclear fusion reaction, resulting in the fusing of hydrogen ions to form helium isotopes. All music in this video is not owned by me, but the artist. Weird Science- Oingo Boingo"
Source; description under video..
Teenagers have been known to do some pretty dangerous things, like taking apart americium smoke detectors, trying to make nuclear reactors in their garage, and now these guys are doing nuclear fusion inside of a home? What could go wrong?
Source; description under video..
Teenagers have been known to do some pretty dangerous things, like taking apart americium smoke detectors, trying to make nuclear reactors in their garage, and now these guys are doing nuclear fusion inside of a home? What could go wrong?
Note the term 'helium isotopes' above. Note that the experimenters are not taking any ionizing or neutron radiation readings, as you read the following materials.. Let's assume for a second that this homegrown lab experiment is real and not faked, despite no readings of power being put in, or reductions in power being shown, once the 'fusion' process begins. No analysis of what is coming out of the jar in terms of hazardous materials is being done, and the experimenter is admitting that the anode/cathode are being 'eaten up'. Where does all of that metal go? Are they breathing in heavy metals? What kinds and types of radiation is being produced? If you play with nuclear energy, you should know the answers to these questions, and be prepared to answer them and measure them in a transparent way.
CARL SAGAN AND JAMES RANDI ON COLD FUSION
http://youtu.be/3BemTGkjl6U
James Randi and Carl Sagan went to a cold fusion information meeting and asked some questions. Here is their observation.
COLD FUSION EXPERIMENTS GENERATE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF NEUTRON RADIATION, WHICH IS DEADLY TO ALL LIFE
According to Wikipedia; "In February 2012 millionaire Sidney Kimmel, convinced that cold fusion was worth investing in by a 19 April 2009 interview with physicist Robert Duncan on the US news-show 60 minutes,[89]made a grant of $5.5 million to the University of Missouri to establish the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR). The grant was intended to support research into the interactions of hydrogen with palladium, nickel or platinum at extreme conditions.[89][90][91] In March 2013 Graham K. Hubler, a nuclear physicist who worked for the Naval Research Laboratory for 40 years, was named director.[92]
One of the SKINR projects is to replicate a 1991 experiment in which Prelas says bursts of millions of neutrons a second were recorded, which was stopped because "his research account had been frozen". He claims that the new experiment has already seen "neutron emissions at similar levels to the 1991 observation".[93][94]
One of the SKINR projects is to replicate a 1991 experiment in which Prelas says bursts of millions of neutrons a second were recorded, which was stopped because "his research account had been frozen". He claims that the new experiment has already seen "neutron emissions at similar levels to the 1991 observation".[93][94]
On 22–25 March 2009, the American Chemical Society meeting included a four-day symposium in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion. Researchers working at the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detection of energetic neutrons using a heavy water electrolysis set-up and a CR-39 detector,[12][119] a result previously published in Naturwissenschaften.[120] The authors claim that these neutrons are indicative of nuclear reactions;[121] without quantitative analysis of the number, energy, and timing of the neutrons and exclusion of other potential sources, this interpretation is unlikely to find acceptance by the wider scientific community.[120][122]
Known instances of nuclear reactions, aside from producing energy, also produce nucleons and particles on readily observable ballistic trajectories. In support of their claim that nuclear reactions took place in their electrolytic cells, Fleischmann and Pons reported a neutron flux of 4,000 neutrons per second, as well as detections of tritium.
EXPERIMENT ALSO CREATES TRITIUM, A DEADLY RADIOACTIVE GAS
(AGRP: Tritium is a radioactive gas, so this debunks the theory that cold fusion does not release any radiation. 'Neutrons' is also a form of deadly radiation, which kills people, and it goes through walls like a knife through hot butter. Admitting that this process releases huge amounts of neutrons means that anyone living within several miles of any experiments should be warned and neutron detectors better be used by anyone involved in any 'cold fusion' experiments.)
The classical branching ratio for previously known fusion reactions that produce tritium would predict, with 1 watt of power, the production of 1012 neutrons per second, levels that would have been fatal to the researchers.[131]
In 2009, Mosier-Boss et al. reported what they called the first scientific report of highly energetic neutrons, using CR-39 plastic radiation detectors,[82] but the claims cannot be validated without a quantitative analysis of neutrons.[120][122]
"Triple tracks" in a CR-39 plastic radiation detector claimed as evidence for neutron emission from palladium deuteride.
One of the main criticisms of cold fusion was that deuteron-deuteron fusion into helium was expected to result in the production of gamma rays—which were not observed and were not observed in subsequent cold fusion experiments.[37][135] Cold fusion researchers have since claimed to find X-rays, helium, neutrons[136] and even nuclear transmutations.[137] Some of them even claim to have found them using only light water and nickel cathodes.[136]
REPRODUCIBILITY PROBLEMS
In 1989, after Fleischmann and Pons had made their claims, many research groups tried to reproduce the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, without success. A few other research groups however reported successful reproductions of cold fusion during this time. In July 1989 an Indian group of BARC (P. K. Iyengar and M. Srinivasan) and in October 1989 a team from USA (Bockris et al.) reported on creation of tritium. In December 1990 Professor Richard Oriani of Minnesota University reported excess heat.[157][notes 4]
Groups that did report successes found that some of their cells were producing the effect where other cells that were built exactly the same and used the same materials were not producing the effect.[158] Researchers that continued to work on the topic have claimed that over the years many successful replications have been made, but still have problems getting reliable replications.[159] Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and its lack led most physicists to believe that the few positive reports could be attributed to experimental error.[158][text 12]
"Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. (...) Internal inconsistencies and lack of predictability and reproducibility remain serious concerns. (...) 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."[88]
Michael McKubre working on deuterium gas-based cold fusion cell used by SRI International.
MISINTERPRETATION OF DATA PROBLEMS
Some research groups initially reported that they had replicated the Fleischmann and Pons results but later retracted their reports and offered an alternative explanation for their original positive results. A group at Georgia Tech found problems with their neutron detector, and Texas A&M discovered bad wiring in their thermometers.[161] These retractions, combined with negative results from some famous laboratories,[6] led most scientists to conclude, as early as 1989, that no positive result should be attributed to cold fusion.[161][162]
CALORIMETRY ERRORS
The calculation of excess heat in electrochemical cells involves certain assumptions.[163] Errors in these assumptions have been offered as non-nuclear explanations for excess heat.
One assumption made by Fleischmann and Pons is that the efficiency of electrolysis is nearly 100%, meaning nearly all the electricity applied to the cell resulted in electrolysis of water, with negligible resistive heating and substantially all the electrolysis product leaving the cell unchanged.[24] This assumption gives the amount of energy expended converting liquid D2O into gaseous D2 and O2.[164] The efficiency of electrolysis is less than one if hydrogen and oxygen recombine to a significant extent within the calorimeter. Several researchers have described potential mechanisms by which this process could occur and thereby account for excess heat in electrolysis experiments.[165][166][167]
Another assumption is that heat loss from the calorimeter maintains the same relationship with measured temperature as found when calibrating the calorimeter.[24] This assumption ceases to be accurate if the temperature distribution within the cell becomes significantly altered from the condition under which calibration measurements were made.[168] This can happen, for example, if fluid circulation within the cell becomes significantly altered.[169][170] Recombination of hydrogen and oxygen within the calorimeter would also alter the heat distribution and invalidate the calibration.[167][171][172]
According to John R. Huizenga, who co-chaired the DOE 1989 panel, if unexplained excess heat is not accompanied by a commensurate amount of nuclear products, then it must not be interpreted as nuclear in origin, but as a measuring error.[173]
Initial lack of control experiments
Control experiments are part of the scientific method to prove that the measured effects do not happen by chance, but are direct results of the experiment. One of the points of criticism of Fleischmann and Pons was the lack of control experiments.[30]
PATENTS
Although details have not surfaced, it appears that the University of Utah forced the 23 March 1989 Fleischmann and Pons announcement to establish priority over the discovery and its patents before the joint publication with Jones.[27] The Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT) announced on 12 April 1989 that it had applied for its own patents based on theoretical work of one of its researchers, Peter L. Hagelstein, who had been sending papers to journals from the 5th to the 12th of April.[174] On 2 December 1993 the University of Utah licensed all its cold fusion patents to ENECO, a new company created to profit from cold fusion discoveries,[175]and on March 1998 it said that it would no longer defend its patents.[71]
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion.[85]Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, said that this was done using the same argument as with perpetual motion machines: that they do not work.[85] Patent applications are required to show that the invention is "useful", and this utility is dependent on the invention's ability to function.[176]
In general USPTO rejections on the sole grounds of the invention's being "inoperative" are rare, since such rejections need to demonstrate "proof of total incapacity",[176] and cases where those rejections are upheld in a Federal Court are even rarer: nevertheless, in 2000, a rejection of a cold fusion patent was appealed in a Federal Court and it was upheld, in part on the grounds that the inventor was unable to establish the utility of the invention.[176][notes 5]
A U.S. patent might still be granted when given a different name to disassociate it from cold fusion,[177] though this strategy has had little success in the US: the same claims that need to be patented can identify it with cold fusion, and most of these patents cannot avoid mentioning Fleischmann and Pons' research due to legal constraints, thus alerting the patent reviewer that it is a cold-fusion-related patent.[177] David Voss said in 1999 that some patents that closely resemble cold fusion processes, and that use materials used in cold fusion, have been granted by the USPTO.[178]
The inventor of three such patents had his applications initially rejected when they were reviewed by experts in nuclear science; but then he rewrote the patents to focus more in the electrochemical parts so they would be reviewed instead by experts in electrochemistry, who approved them.[178][179] When asked about the resemblance to cold fusion, the patent holder said that it used nuclear processes involving "new nuclear physics" unrelated to cold fusion.[178] Melvin Miles was granted in 2004 a patent for a cold fusion device, and in 2007 he described his efforts to remove all instances of "cold fusion" from the patent description to avoid having it rejected outright.[180]
At least one patent related to cold fusion has been granted by the European Patent Office.[181]
A patent only legally prevents others from using or benefiting from one's invention. However, the general public perceives a patent as a stamp of approval, and a holder of three cold fusion patents said the patents were very valuable and had helped in getting investments.[178]"
COLD FISSION
Cold fission or cold nuclear fission is defined as involving fission events for which fission fragments have such low excitation energy that no neutrons or gammas are emitted.
Cold fission events have so low a probability of occurrence that it is necessary to use a high flux nuclear reactor to study them.
The first observation of cold fission events was in experiments on fission induced by thermal neutrons of uranium 233, uranium 235[1] and plutonium 239[2] using the High Flux Reactor at theInstitut Laue-Langevin in Grenoble, France. Other experiments on cold fission were also done involving 248Cm[3] and 252Cf .[4] A unified approach of Cluster decay, alpha decay and cold fission was developed by Dorin N Poenaru et al.[5][6] A phenomenological interpretation was proposed by Gönnenwein[7] and Duarte et al.[8]
FIVE SCIENTIFIC REASONS WHY COLD FUSION IS BUNK
"Fusion, the same process that powers stars including the sun, would be a relatively clean, safe and near-limitless source of power. Unlike the fission of nuclear reactors that splits atoms to make energy, fusion fuses atoms. In nature, a star's immense gravity works to do the job of crushing hydrogen nuclei, protons, to create the reaction. But on Earth, crushing hydrogen atoms is no easy matter. It typically requires a machine that generates plasma -- atoms stripped of their electrons -- and runs at ultra-high temperatures in the millions of degrees Fahrenheit range. In short, more energy gets put in than what comes out, and that is not efficient.
Although Rossi staged demonstrations in 2011 attended by several journalists and a few scientists, he hasn't shared details about the machine or any of the data with other scientists nor has he allowed independent parties to confirm that a nuclear reaction has happened. In fact at one demonstration, he specifically disallowed a physicist from testing for the presence of gamma radiation. Despite the criticism, there are still supporters; among them Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, who pioneered superconductivity research."
NO SHARING OF DATA EQUALS JUNK SCIENCE
Sharing data and allowing measurements is one aspect of neutral science. Science is all about confirming data, using another meter to verify readings, and repeating the same experiment in the same way, and getting the same outcome, thus giving more weight to the 'inventor' and his or her theory. Anyone who does not allow or do data sharing and who does not allow radiation measurements by others, is immediately suspect.
Rossi bashes green energy, but has never delivered on his extravagant claims.
“I have had 30 years experience in dealing with people like Rossi. Unfortunately I have seen lots of money lost by genuine believers like many on this site. I thought it was very likely Mr Rossi would refuse to repeat the most simplest of his demonstrations. There is one obvious reason for this – the device does not work.”
http://cold-fusion.ca/dick-smith-hits-back-at-rossi-scam-261000
WHY IT DOESN'T WORK AND WHY IT HAS TO DIE
VanneV October 30, 2014 Why I'm Certain That The Rossi E-Cat Doesn't Work As Advertised 11/29/2013
Why "Cold Fusion" Has To Die 7/15/2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/15/why-cold-fusion-has-to-die/
FREE FUSION ENERGY ALREADY EXISTS, WHY TRY TO COMPETE WITH SOMETHING THAT IS FREE?
VanneV December 14, 2014 “…In short, the most promising fusion reactor is already in place, free, well engineered, and appropriately sited 93 million miles away. There’s no business case for reproducing it in miniature form on earth—if you understand who your competitors are. Caveat investor….”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/09/07/fusion-power-the-case-of-the-wrong-competitors/SUMMARY
So far, according to scientists around the world, cold fusion suffers from a lack of being able to reproduce the positive results of the initial discovery. Other researchers have not been able to reproduce cold fusion, in part possibly due to lack of data sharing. On the other hand, if the video at the top of this article is not completely bogus, maybe cold fusion is much easier to accomplish than many scientists believe.
The biggest problem with cold fusion (if it indeed is real) is that the experimenters are potentially playing with a new form of producing power that emits radioactive elements, gases and neutron radiation, all of which are extremely hazardous and toxic..
But these same individuals are unwilling to do even safety checks or admit to any dangers at all. In many cases, they lie about radiation, and say that nothing dangerous is coming out, much like the nuclear industry. The experiments also suffer from a lack of transparency of data, radiation measurements, measurements of heavy metal emissions from reactors, and the like.
The cold fusion experimenters suffer with the same secrecy process used at the beginning of the atomic fission age. That secrecy resulted in huge environmental problems, the setting off of 2,400 nuclear weapons in open air and radioactive pollution all around the world, a massive Atoms For Peace propaganda campaign, and a media coverup of the dangers of ionizing radiation and neutron radiation, which continues on today. Does humanity really need a repeat of that, only in a much more toxic and dangerous way, via neutron radiation?
Since neutron radiation is orders of magnitude worse than alpha, beta and gamma radiation, plus tritium being emitted via these experiments is VERY HAZARDOUS, all of these experiments should be tightly controlled and have many safety and radiation measurement measures in place to avoid exposing the public to potentially health damaging and life threatening neutron radiation, as well as heavy metal poisoning, or radioactive tritium.
Thanks for your generous and very appreciated support!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Time Donation - AGRP Online Magazine - Monthly Donation - AGRP Online Magazine
A Green Road Eco Clothing/Products Store - Shop At A Green Road Amazon Store
More ways to support A Green Road Projects - AGRP Website - Twitter - Facebook
Get Magazine Delivered To Your Email Address - AGRP App For Smartphones - Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about the cover up and denial of most nuclear reactor accidents, and the fallacy of next generation nuclear reactors, click here;
Nuclear Power Plant Threats, Accidents, Recycling Nuclear Fuel, Movie Reviews, Next Generation Nuclear Plants, Terrorists
For more information about the dangers of neutron radiation and tritium, click on this link;
Individual Radioactive Elements/Isotopes, USA Radiation, Radiation Exposure Prevention, Reversal, Chelation
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/individual-radioactive-elementsisotopes.html
Why are these researchers so bent on cold fusion, when hydrogen power is right under their noses? Why not use the sun to split water into hydrogen and oxygen? Then store the hydrogen and burn it later, when energy is needed for cooking, heating water, running a vehicle or producing electricity? The hydrogen fuel cycle is absolutely radiation free, side effect free, and produces no pollution. Why is there so much fascination with toxic, polluting, and radiation filled energy sources?
In addition, there is enough geothermal energy to power the entire US and replace all power plants, just with that energy source. There is also enough wind energy available to replace all power plants in the US. There is also enough solar energy to replace all power plants in the US. There is no lack of answers, just a lack of correct green information and education.
In addition, there is enough geothermal energy to power the entire US and replace all power plants, just with that energy source. There is also enough wind energy available to replace all power plants in the US. There is also enough solar energy to replace all power plants in the US. There is no lack of answers, just a lack of correct green information and education.
End
Low Energy Nuclear Reactors; Is Cold Fusion The Next New Free Energy Source?
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/10/low-energy-nuclear-reactors-is-cold.html
Environment, Holistic Living, Health, Self-Healing, Zero Point And Renewable Energy
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/green-energy-green-living.html
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/10/low-energy-nuclear-reactors-is-cold.html
For more articles like about zero carbon, zero nuclear radiation hydrogen power and renewable energy sources which emit no toxins, and don't blow up, melt down or generate high level nuclear waste that must be guarded for 1 million years, click on;
Environment, Holistic Living, Health, Self-Healing, Zero Point And Renewable Energy
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/green-energy-green-living.html
Post a Comment