Cold Fusion Is Hot

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Cold Fusion Is Hot

Post by MSimon »

Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

I predict it will end up being instrument error.

Skipjack
Posts: 6110
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Why is it that all these things are never showing any real signifficant numbers? It is always ridiculously small amounts of something. That allone makes these claims doubtful to me... and so more likely to be simple measurement errors.

jgarry
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:02 pm

Post by jgarry »

Cold fusion is interesting science. Very interesting. Perhaps we never will see any real cold fusion power generation, but I think we will see some interesting results in science generally.
But perhaps most interesting is what the history of cold fusion tells us about human nature. Cold fusion has had to deal with strange emotional reactions; supposedly objective scientists have reacted to experimental results almost like they wished to conduct trials for witchcraft.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

TallDave wrote:I predict it will end up being instrument error.
Unlikely. The "Instrument" is a piece of plastic that shows sets of triple bore holes caused by neutron impact.




http://www.physorg.com/news157046734.html

David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

jgarry wrote:Cold fusion is interesting science. Very interesting. Perhaps we never will see any real cold fusion power generation, but I think we will see some interesting results in science generally.
But perhaps most interesting is what the history of cold fusion tells us about human nature. Cold fusion has had to deal with strange emotional reactions; supposedly objective scientists have reacted to experimental results almost like they wished to conduct trials for witchcraft.

I have been following (not closely) cold fusion for years, and I recall reading several stories about the researchers using a special plastic that records the flight path of sub atomic particles which leave bore holes through it. The articles have emphasized the point that this is impossible to fake, and indeed is evidence of neutron emission.

From the very beginning with Pons and Fleischman, there was enough there to realize SOMETHING was going on. If not fusion, it was none the less an interesting area of research.

Too much of science nowadays is subject to "intellectual phase lock" . The idea is that if the majority of, and the biggest brains in science don't agree with it, it's obviously nonsense.

Too many past discoveries occurred exactly because people decided to go against the grain of prevailing knowledge.


David

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

ravingdave wrote:
TallDave wrote:I predict it will end up being instrument error.
Unlikely. The "Instrument" is a piece of plastic that shows sets of triple bore holes caused by neutron impact.

http://www.physorg.com/news157046734.html

David
I'm not sure how reliable CR-39 actually is in regards to false positives (I remember all the issues with false positives in IEC fusion). I'm going to lean towards instrument error till we get a lot more confirmation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CR-39

kurt9
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Not yet...

Post by kurt9 »

Earthtech has attempted to replicate Pam Boss's experiments. They were able to replicate the results, but do not rule out a chemical explanation for the positive results:

http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html

It is interesting that "cold fusion", Black Light Power, and Jovion seem to be separate efforts/explanations for the same observed phenomenon. This makes me think that the phenomenon could be real. However, its unclear if it can be used to make energy and, if so, that the effect can be scaled up.

gblaze42
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:04 pm

Post by gblaze42 »

ravingdave wrote:
TallDave wrote:I predict it will end up being instrument error.
Unlikely. The "Instrument" is a piece of plastic that shows sets of triple bore holes caused by neutron impact.




http://www.physorg.com/news157046734.html

David
The problem here is no mention of a control, how do we know the triple tracks weren't generated from background radiation?

Skipjack
Posts: 6110
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Yupp background radiation was something that came to my mind as well.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

gblaze42 wrote:
ravingdave wrote:
TallDave wrote:I predict it will end up being instrument error.
Unlikely. The "Instrument" is a piece of plastic that shows sets of triple bore holes caused by neutron impact.




http://www.physorg.com/news157046734.html

David
The problem here is no mention of a control, how do we know the triple tracks weren't generated from background radiation?



It has been a long time since I read the articles relating to this, but if memory serves me correctly, they placed these plastic neutron detectors all around the experiment, and it is only those which were close to the anode (cathode?) that showed indications of holes and scratches.


I was under the impression that these results were widely known. I see now that I was mistaken. If I can find the time, i'll see if I can find one of the articles i've read which mentions what they did to insure the integrity of the experiment.


David

Morgan
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am

Post by Morgan »

Too much of science nowadays is subject to "intellectual phase lock" . The idea is that if the majority of, and the biggest brains in science don't agree with it, it's obviously nonsense.
This seems consistent with my semi-ignorant observation: Reaching the point at which one really understands the leading edge of science has become increasingly difficult. Galileo could learn new things by watching balls roll down a ramp. That understanding could be communicated in a day. Newton used new mathematics to describe the observed motions of the planets. That could be understood in a month. Einstein takes at least a year. These days, it probably takes more like a decade to really understand anything at the boundaries.

Those who have reached the point of understanding one or more of those leading edge theories can't bear the idea that they might have to start thinking really hard all over again. Easier to reject observations that fail to correspond to theory. Often - almost always - correct to do so.

But not always.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

David
The problem here is no mention of a control, how do we know the triple tracks weren't generated from background radiation?
It was reported that when the experiment was run without deuterium, no neutron tracks were observed.

gblaze42
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:04 pm

Post by gblaze42 »

parallel wrote:David
The problem here is no mention of a control, how do we know the triple tracks weren't generated from background radiation?
It was reported that when the experiment was run without deuterium, no neutron tracks were observed.
That still wouldn't allow the researchers to know if the tracks that were made were not some random collision from background neutron radiation.

A set of control C-39 plates shielded from the device should tell them where the neutrons were being generated to a better degree.

One other thing, Pamela Mosier-Boss has worked with Fleischmann for a few years, she is a firm part of the 'cold fusion' camp.

David_Jay
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Post by David_Jay »

One other thing, Pamela Mosier-Boss has worked with Fleischmann for a few years, she is a firm part of the 'cold fusion' camp.
And your point? If there is a physical phenomenon underlying all of the anomalous results then why should it matter what "camp" the researcher comes from? Are you perhaps an "alarmist", a "denier", a "luke-warmer"? Labels don't advance science.

If Lyndon LaRouche (trying to come up with a crackpot that no one on this forum will defend) discovered a plentiful, low cost energy production system, I would still accept the benefit.
not tall, not raving (yet...)

Post Reply