Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Cold Fusion demo

  1. May 28, 2008 #1
    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
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 29, 2008 #2
    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
     
  4. May 29, 2008 #3
    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
     
  5. May 29, 2008 #4
    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. Sincerely,

    John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil
    Naval Research Laboratory
    4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
    Washington, DC 20375-5337
     
  6. May 30, 2008 #5
    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. Sincerely,
    >
    >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.

    \
     
  7. May 30, 2008 #6
    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.
     
  8. May 31, 2008 #7
    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. Sincerely,
    >
    > 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
     
  9. May 31, 2008 #8
    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
     
  10. May 31, 2008 #9
    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.
     
  11. Jun 1, 2008 #10
    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
     
  12. Jun 5, 2008 #11
    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). Sincerely,

    John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil
    Naval Research Laboratory
    4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
    Washington, DC 20375-5337
     
  13. Jul 11, 2008 #12
    Any news?
    A new experiment was planned for july, 10th...
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Cold Fusion demo
  1. Cold Fusion Questions (Replies: 4)

  2. Cold fusion? (Replies: 16)

  3. Cold fusion? (Replies: 6)

  4. Cold Fusion (Replies: 8)

Loading...