Is Cold Fusion Finally Proven? New Demonstration Raises Hopes for Clean Energy

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html

"Now, esteemed Physics Professor Yoshiaki Arata of Osaka University in
Japan claims to have made the first successful demonstration of cold
fusion. Last Thursday, May 22, Arata and his colleague Yue-Chang Zhang
of Shianghai Jiotong University presented the cold fusion demonstration
to 60 onlookers, including other physicists, as well as reporters from
six major newspapers and two TV studios.
...
Arata and Zhang demonstrated very successfully the generation of
continuous excess energy [heat] from ZrO2-nano-Pd sample powders under
D2 gas charging and generation of helium-4," Takahashi told New Energy
Times. "The demonstrated live data looked just like data they reported
in their published papers [J. High Temp. Soc. Jpn, Feb. and March
issues, 2008]. This demonstration showed that the method is highly
reproducible."

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

 

[Uncle Al]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html
>
> "Now, esteemed Physics Professor Yoshiaki Arata of Osaka University in
> Japan claims to have made the first successful demonstration of cold
> fusion. Last Thursday, May 22, Arata and his colleague Yue-Chang Zhang
> of Shianghai Jiotong University presented the cold fusion demonstration
> to 60 onlookers, including other physicists, as well as reporters from
> six major newspapers and two TV studios.
> ..
> Arata and Zhang demonstrated very successfully the generation of
> continuous excess energy [heat] from ZrO2-nano-Pd sample powders under
> D2 gas charging and generation of helium-4," Takahashi told New Energy
> Times. "The demonstrated live data looked just like data they reported
> in their published papers [J. High Temp. Soc. Jpn, Feb. and March
> issues, 2008]. This demonstration showed that the method is highly
> reproducible."

We postulate that energy is locally conserved.

D + D --> T + neutron(1.01 MeV)
D + D --> He-3 + proton(3.02 MeV)
D + D --> He-4 + 23.85 MeV in photons

A chemical bond does not exceed 3.5 eV. Where was the radiation,
including bremsstrahlung? Was tritium or He-3 detected? Of course
not. Why would claiming two deuteriums fuse to He-4 be a bad thing no
matte what the proposed mechanism?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

 

[Tom Roberts]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html
> "Now, esteemed Physics Professor Yoshiaki Arata of Osaka University in
> Japan claims to have made the first successful demonstration of cold
> fusion. [...]

What neutron flux did it generate? One cannot have fusion without
generating neutrons. Lots of them. But there are many ways to fool
yourself into thinking your apparatus is "generating" energy...

How long did it continue? True fusion could generate lots of energy from
very small amounts of material, but conventional methods can only run
for a much shorter time.

Given the history, one should be truly skeptical here: as James "The
Amazing" Randi has pointed out, to really be sure of such things one
needs a professional magician engaged in the observations, in addition
to the scientists.Tom Roberts

 

[J. B. Wood]

In article <6a3a5lF35q7l3U1@mid.individual.net>, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
<dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:

> presented the cold fusion demonstration
> to 60 onlookers, including other physicists, as well as reporters from
> six major newspapers and two TV studios.
> ..

Well, maybe this time around but judging by the snip above it looks like a
repeat of the "celebrity factor" from the late '80s and makes one question
the motives if not the credentials of the physicists involved. A number
of reputations got ruined or severely tarnished after the party. Let's
see if Princeton and other labs can repeat the results (which was a major
problem last go around).

This reminds me of a less publicized concept a few years back when a
university professor of electromagnetics lent his name (and by extension
his university's) as an endorsement of a "revolutionary" new device called
a "Crossed Field Antenna". Not only was there no test data to back up
claims by the inventors of the antenna, the same group (including the
university prof) appropriated (read: misinterpreted) portions of Maxwell's
theory as the basis for the design. And yes, there is a patent on file at
USPTO. Thank goodness science has a way of revealing the truth (to those
who seek it) even after an extended period of time.

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

 

[Murray Arnow]

J. B. Wood wrote:
>Dirk Bruere wrote:
>
>> presented the cold fusion demonstration
>> to 60 onlookers, including other physicists, as well as reporters from
>> six major newspapers and two TV studios.
>> ..
>
>Well, maybe this time around but judging by the snip above it looks like a
>repeat of the "celebrity factor" from the late '80s and makes one question
>the motives if not the credentials of the physicists involved. A number
>of reputations got ruined or severely tarnished after the party. Let's
>see if Princeton and other labs can repeat the results (which was a major
>problem last go around).
>
>This reminds me of a less publicized concept a few years back when a
>university professor of electromagnetics lent his name (and by extension
>his university's) as an endorsement of a "revolutionary" new device called
>a "Crossed Field Antenna". Not only was there no test data to back up
>claims by the inventors of the antenna, the same group (including the
>university prof) appropriated (read: misinterpreted) portions of Maxwell's
>theory as the basis for the design. And yes, there is a patent on file at
>USPTO. Thank goodness science has a way of revealing the truth (to those
>who seek it) even after an extended period of time.
>
>John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil
>Naval Research Laboratory
>4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
>Washington, DC 20375-5337
>

You guys from NRL used to give us fits when I worked for Northrup. We had the
worst time trying to blow smoke up your ass (more than any of the other
government labs). But getting back to the subject: Some 20 years ago in the EE
community, when there was great interest in magnetic levitation, some European
engineers found that at very high magnetic-fields the Lorentz force law broke
down. They then made the remarkable claim that Ampere's Law still worked,
however. The EE journals reported work on this discovery for less than a half
year, then it disappeared from the publications without comment--it is
interesting to note that Langmuir had this a criterion for a Pathological
Science.

As observed by other posters, nobody in the audience of this cold-fusion demo
asked about where the neutrons were or how the reaction was energetically
justifiable. Clearly, there weren't competent scientists in the audience, as
claimed. The one question journalists don't know how to ask is has this
"discovery" been peer reviewed? Any time the scientific community first learns
about a major discovery through the popular media, it is nearly certain to be
controversial and inevitably false. The lesson taught by Fleischman and Ponds
has not been learned.

\

 

[Douglas Eagleson]

On May 27, 3:22 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html
>
> "Now, esteemed Physics Professor Yoshiaki Arata of Osaka University in
> Japan claims to have made the first successful demonstration of cold
> fusion. Last Thursday, May 22, Arata and his colleague Yue-Chang Zhang
> of Shianghai Jiotong University presented the cold fusion demonstration
> to 60 onlookers, including other physicists, as well as reporters from
> six major newspapers and two TV studios.
> ..
> Arata and Zhang demonstrated very successfully the generation of
> continuous excess energy [heat] from ZrO2-nano-Pd sample powders under
> D2 gas charging and generation of helium-4," Takahashi told New Energy
> Times. "The demonstrated live data looked just like data they reported
> in their published papers [J. High Temp. Soc. Jpn, Feb. and March
> issues, 2008]. This demonstration showed that the method is highly
> reproducible."
>
> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UK
> Remote Viewing classes in London

Excess energy is a likley misnomer. D2 as adsorption will cause a
temperature change to the positive. A He-4 as a mistaken a
application might well exist. A cold reaction can appear, but the
energy was still endothermic. A careful energy calorimeter was always
necessary to quantify all effect.

A nice resistor as a calibration current heater can cause a well
documented applied cold fusion test.

Cold fusion is a real effect, but the question was always excess
energy. SO finding some He-4 without an exact energy release
measurement means little.

I remember a talk by Pond's neutron detection experts once. And exact
neutron fluence was always a critical value relative to the heat
generated. Exothermic condition was inferred incorrectly. A person
must assign absolute error bars to ALL neutron fluence measurments.
They did not use realistic neutron erorr bars. A one sigma of 10
percent for the National Neutron Standard should be assigned.

It is a critical reality, a real calibration is extremely difficult
unless a relative source calibration occurs. No one on this earth
currently perfoms absolute neutron calibration, should warn people
engaged in critical neutron measurment.

Ponds played a real chemistry game and ended up shafted by true
undocumented absolute neutron error.

 

[Juan R. González-Ãlvarez]

J. B. Wood wrote on Wed, 28 May 2008 13:43:27 +0000:

> In article <6a3a5lF35q7l3U1@mid.individual.net>, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> presented the cold fusion demonstration to 60 onlookers, including
>> other physicists, as well as reporters from six major newspapers and
>> two TV studios. ..
>
> Well, maybe this time around but judging by the snip above it looks like
> a repeat of the "celebrity factor" from the late '80s and makes one
> question the motives if not the credentials of the physicists involved.
> A number of reputations got ruined or severely tarnished after the
> party. Let's see if Princeton and other labs can repeat the results
> (which was a major problem last go around).
>
> This reminds me of a less publicized concept a few years back when a
> university professor of electromagnetics lent his name (and by extension
> his university's) as an endorsement of a "revolutionary" new device
> called a "Crossed Field Antenna". Not only was there no test data to
> back up claims by the inventors of the antenna, the same group
> (including the university prof) appropriated (read: misinterpreted)
> portions of Maxwell's theory as the basis for the design. And yes,
> there is a patent on file at USPTO.The first time i heard about the "Crossed Field Antenna". But i have
searched some info and found next

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossed_field_antenna

http://www.crossedfieldantenna.com/

Do you mean that antennas sold were not and this is all a lye or that
antennas sold were not working and this is all a fraud or what?

About cold fusion, i would call attention about last high quality papers
published on the topic. Take a look also to

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/March/22030701.asp

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR06/SessionIndex2/?SessionEventID=45597


> Thank goodness science has a way of
> revealing the truth (to those who seek it) even after an extended period
> of time.
>
> John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil Naval
> Research Laboratory
> 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
> Washington, DC 20375-5337

Cold fusion research has suffered from premature news, experimental
mistakes, and one clear tendency to censorship and biased review.

Did not you know that Julian Schwinger resigned as Member and Fellow of
the American Physical Society in protest of its peer review practice on
cold fusion?

Schwinger, Julian (1991), “Cold fusion—Does it have a future?â€, in Suzuki,
Masuo & Kubo, Ryogo, Evolutionary Trends in the Physical Sciences:
Proceedings of the Yoshio Nishina Centennial Symposium, Tokyo, Japan,
December 5-7, 1990, Springer Proceedings in Physics, vol. 57, Berlin:
Springer Verlag, pp. 171–175, ISBN 3-540-54568-9 .

Cold fusion is still a polemic field which the last word has not been
still said.
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org

 

[J. J. Lodder]

Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote:

> Cold fusion research has suffered from premature news, experimental
> mistakes, and one clear tendency to censorship and biased review.
>
> Did not you know that Julian Schwinger resigned as Member and Fellow of
> the American Physical Society in protest of its peer review practice on
> cold fusion?

Correction:
Schwinger resigned in protest because they refused
to publish -his- papers on cold fusion,
not because of their peer review practice in general.

They may well have tried to do him a service,

Jan

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

Hey commrades, haven't you seen the movie 'The Saint'? Cold fusion is real! :)

I guess we will have to wait a few months for peer review on this claim, since its only days fresh, there is a lot of nitpicking that needs to be done first.

 

[Juan R. González-Álvarez]

J. J. Lodder wrote on Fri, 30 May 2008 20:27:24 +0000:

> Juan R. González-Ãlvarez <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>> Cold fusion research has suffered from premature news, experimental
>> mistakes, and one clear tendency to censorship and biased review.
>>
>> Did not you know that Julian Schwinger resigned as Member and Fellow of
>> the American Physical Society in protest of its peer review practice on
>> cold fusion?
>
> Correction:
> Schwinger resigned in protest because they refused to publish -his-
> papers on cold fusion, not because of their peer review practice in
> general.

Thanks by 'correction' but my original quote was "peer review practice on
cold fusion".

Which I never imagined would be interpreted as regarding general peer
review practice :-)

To fix a bit the issue, Julian Schwinger wrote in the "Cold Fusion—Does
It Have a Future?" reference cited in a previous message:

(\blockquote
The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in
editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of
anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship
will be the death of science.
)

> They may well have tried to do him a service,

Future will decide over that.--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org

 

[J. B. Wood]

In article <pan.2008.05.30.14.02.36@canonicalscience.com>, "Juan R.
González-Ãlvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote:

> The first time i heard about the "Crossed Field Antenna". But i have
> searched some info and found next
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossed_field_antenna
>
> http://www.crossedfieldantenna.com/
>
> Do you mean that antennas sold were not and this is all a lye or that
> antennas sold were not working and this is all a fraud or what?
>

Well, I'll have to let the ng moderator decide whether this is relevant or
not. If it is posted then to answer your question: It wasn't that the
antenna didn't radiate but subsequent test and analyses by third parties
established that it did not perform any better than an electrically small
antenna of considerably simpler design. The CFA however was being
marketed as a compact antenna whose electrical characteristics were
similar to a medium frequency AM broadcast antenna. The inventors used
flawed physics to explain how their device using, for example a 10 kW
transmitter, could service the same AM listening area as a traditional AM
broadcast tower.

The inventors used the concept of the Poynting vector without considering
its genesis in the Maxwell equations and then proceeded to assume that one
can somehow synthesize that vector by independently manipulating electric
and magnetic fields to create a propagating EM wave. (You might want to
look up what Dr. John (Jack) Belrose published on the CFA).

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337

 

[jumpjack]

Any news?
A new experiment was planned for july, 10th...