NASA Cold Fusion Update
NASA: A Nuclear Reactor To Replace Your Water Heater, Forbes
“Instead, a low-energy nuclear reactor (LENR) uses common, stable elements like nickel, carbon, and hydrogen to produce stable products like copper or nitrogen, along with heat and electricity.
“It has the demonstrated ability to produce excess amounts of energy, cleanly, without hazardous ionizing radiation, without producing nasty waste,” said Joseph Zawodny, a senior research scientist with NASA’s Langley Research Center.”
Keith’s note: When you ask the technology people at NASA HQ about this they throw up their arms and say that they have nothing to do with this – and that its all run by NASA LaRC. As such, it seems that Lesa Roe apparently makes these technology decisions for the agency by default. Funny thing: if the potential for this LENR research is so great, why is there never any mention in NASA Spinoff documents or speeches and publications by NASA’s Chief Technologist?
Cold Fusion Update From LaRC (Update), earlier post
“7. Did anyone at NASA headquarters have a role in deciding whether this research was to be funded?
No.“
Earlier NASA Cold Fusion news
What are they going to support next, astrology?
When a growing number of highly educated, knowledgeable and experienced scientists and engineers in several countries are working on this, and are willing to state publicly that they think there may be genuine potential for LENR to become a real power source — a power source safer than anything else around — then I, for one, am encouraged and hope that they’ll give it a serious chance.
It’s real easy to dismiss it out of hand. That takes no knowledge or effort at all.
I would much rather have people with the appropriate knowledge working on this and eventually determining whether it is viable or not than have no one working on it if it is viable. If this turns out to be real but nobody follows through with it until much later, we’re going to look pretty stupid when our descendants ask, Why weren’t you doing this 100 years ago?
I can’t help but notice that the nay-sayers never seem to have any better alternatives to offer in place of whatever they’re rejecting. Any new technology should be assumed innocent until proven guilty — proven, not assumed.
True. LM and others are also working on this, although the field has been queered a bit by Rossi and his endless unverified claims.
It would be very important if real, but perhaps that’s the trick at NASA nowadays – if something is potentially revolutionary, don’t tell the bosses, otherwise they’ll get you working on the SLS, which isn’t.
I wonder what ever happened to the experiments Zawodny and Bushnell were supposed to do to verify Widom Larson? Anyone hear of results or see any publications?
They seem to have a lack of publications when it comes to proving their own case.
Some interesting commentary on this:
http://blog.newenergytimes….
More current link:
news.newenergytimes.net/201…
Answer to your question!
Feb, 22, 2013 – New Energy Times: NASA’s LENR Article “Nuclear Reactor in Your Basement”
news.newenergytimes.net/201…
NASA’s interest in LENR and its public relations about the field have been generally enthusiastic and supportive. NASA has been communicating information about the science technically correctly. However, there is another side to the story. We show in our report that NASA is behaving less like a government agency that is trying to pursue basic science research for the public good and more like a commercial competitor of at least one private company, Lattice Energy LLC, and Lewis Larsen, its chief executive officer and LENR theorist.
We also critique Dennis Bushnell for his irresponsible propagation of claims made by a few wayward researchers and would-be entrepreneurs who have claimed excess-heat in the hundreds- to thousands-of-Watts range in recent years. There are no heat effects in the magnitude they claim. Bushnell’s suggestion of a slow-acting LENR experiment with extremely high-heat production that would melt windows is also not believable.
Steven B. Krivit
Publisher and Senior Editor, New Energy Times
Editor-in-Chief, 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia
http://news.newenergytimes….
“I can’t help but notice that the nay-sayers never seem to have any
better alternatives to offer in place of whatever they’re rejecting.”
There are thousands of alternatives — just look at all the research proposals submitted to funding agencies by academic research groups in physics and engineering.
Anyway, it’s organizations like the National Science Foundations and DARPA that have expertise in choosing worthy physics projects for funding. They use calls for proposals, open to anyone, and use long-established, peer-review systems to choose the most promising research to fund. The decisions are made by independent review boards.
I understand, but in all honesty, I have to wonder how open-minded the review groups are, day to day, month to month (people come and go). Elsewhere we see closed minds, people speaking outside of their own expertise, and sometimes even outright petty and childish behavior from professional people on controversial issues. Is there any reason to think that the same doesn’t happen sometimes with NSF and DARPA?
Also consider that this is not exclusively an American technology. Much of the work on LENR is being done in other countries, and some of these are getting the same dismissive reactions and prejudice from scientific professionals who are supposed to embrace skepticism, but not witch hunting.
But again, what alternatives do the naysayers propose that humanity use and/or pursue instead? I don’t ever seem to see that part. Do they suggest that the US and China keep on burning coal, their current major fuel for electricity generation? Of all the “thousands of alternatives” you mentioned, how many get funded? How many get any better “review” than LENR by the system? How many of them are anybody at all actually working on? Apparently the answer is, Not many. So we have to ask, Why this is the case when we’re dealing with energy production, one of the most pressing issues in the modern world?
Not to sound like a whistle blower, but how many people on these review boards have vested interests in seeing the current coal, oil and/or nuclear power generation systems stay in place, and have new systems of the same type replace them as they wear out? Proving the viability of a new energy technology is only the first step. The second step would be educating and convincing the common people, the users, about the improved new system and the need to convert to it. The people can then “force” the governments to make policy and offer incentives/cost breaks for converting to the new system for use in homes and businesses.
Whether it’s LENR or something else that eventually replaces fossil fuels, perfecting a new and better energy system is only part of the problem. Overthrowing those who got rich and stayed rich on the old system will be a major battle, politically and economically, but it’s a battle that must be fought and won. How many of the “soldiers” from the other side, and/or their associates, are associated with, or have influence over, NSF, DARPA and others who make the key decisions?
Steve,
I can see you are trying to be optimistic and positive, hoping that a technology will prove out and hoping that people will have the open-mindedness and flexibility to let researchers discover new energy technologies. But as the 3rd Rock comedy series quote goes “No Leon, You’re Wrong.” The Gonzo-skeptics of the world will work to squash and mute you for being so open to possibility, to the unknown. I’ll remind you, for a small energy innovation effort to be going on at NASA-Langley in 2013, is utter heresy. Witchcraft even!
Look at all of the skepto-paths here. Fully indoctrinated into classic high energy physics, they screech and groan and
protest, ready to burn-at-the-stake anyone that dares to pursue research of the unexplored. Curses to those occult LENR thoughts and potions! “That must only be done in DOE!” Stay in your rat hole! “It’s outside of your charter!” You can’t speak of your research until it is vetted and in a journal and accepted by the energy saints! Our nuclear energy physicist gods are holy and perfect and understand every aspect of all
of the Godly fundamental forces. These heretic researchers haven’t proven LENR so they must be gagged and forced to stop all work! Punish Zawodny and Bushnell for their beliefs
and research work on LENR. Rossi and the Italian gang must be shunned too. If LENR is not part of a $20 billion dollar government approved program, it must be wrong and bad.
If it is not 100% repeatable & proven, it must be prohibited! Fifty lashes to them for public mention of it and fifty more for letting it slip into Forbes! Pursuit of LENR or anything like
it must never occur, until it has been magically done, by some unknown others, not here! I’m thankful stoning isn’t popular here today.
Granted, the guardians of the proven, the skeptos,
the protectors of existing nuclear faith may be a bit behind the times: still in denial that the light bulb has been invented, virtually positive no man has ever been on the moon, with lingering thoughts that the Earth is flat, doubtful like Ken Olson: “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977. and countless other skepticisms that oddly have proven to be wrong, or at least millions use them daily: http://www.rinkworks.com/sa…
If the anti-LENR “strong forces” prevail and kill all LENR efforts, they can move on to bigger game. NASA research covers a broad spectrum of sciences and they could go after many leading edge space research fields that have not yet proven out, come to solid findings, or been peer reviewed and blessed by the academic know-it-all-gods. Like LENR, maybe all NASA research of this leading edge type should be killed.
Recently I listened, intently, to a number of the super-smart national lab saints, the world-class best nuclear physicists, in a small private briefing, for many hours. They bashed Pons Fleishmann to smithereens. They torched and burnt Widom Larsen to the ground. The scoffed and kicked LENR into the
corner. My heavens they were powerful. They seemed to know the atom inside and out, every preon, quark and lepton, like they were life-long drinking buddies, or that their atomic conjugal visits had given them some
intimate knowledge of every nuance of their sub-atomic-mate’s inner workings. Their thinking was so convergent, so
reduction-istic, that I left convinced – that they had discovered everything, that nothing more would ever be discovered again in life (unless THEY happened upon
it).
Then by chance, I spent hours with Bushnell and Zawodny too. Given my prior indoctrination by the nuclear saints, I of course thought these two must surely be ding-dongs, bar none. But I was wrong. Their theory, their work, their findings and experiments to-date were anything but dull, anything but silly. In fact, the details, the concepts,
were – fascinating, rich, provoking, novel. Does that mean that LENR works? No. Does it mean it or something similar to it may be worthy of pursuit and wind up working? Yes. Possibly yes.
From all of this, for young researchers and innovators, I would recommend this: Listen and learn all you can from the old, fossilized, 50 year nuclear saints. Study hard. Learn the physics of the past 100 years. When you’re done, realize that you too can make a nuclear reactor or bomb, just like they started doing 60 years ago. So you learned old tricks. Hey great. Big deal.
But then get to the Bushnells, Zawodnys, the Rossis and Rubbias and immerse yourselves in their world of innovative thinking. That’s where discovery is. The convergent, fossilized saints will never discover a damn thing. Fortunately, I know you young innovators are already very keen to this old foggie non-outcome stuff and I didn’t even need to recommend the path.
In the end, LENR may not be a viable solution. Or it may. Either way, that’s ok. Edison’s first attempt at a filament didn’t work either. Fortunately he didn’t quit. LENR may work – or it may only be mediocre and it’s best will be to heat up a cup of coffee. But overall, my bet for real, high-impact breakthroughs is with those researchers that passionately and smartly work the leading-edges, like LENR.
>”In the end, LENR may not be a viable solution. Or it >may. Either way, that’s ok. Edison’s first attempt at a>filament didn’t work either. Fortunately he didn’t quit.”Aart de Geus, co-founder of Synopsys, said of engineers are like Wyle E. Coyote, they never give up on working the impossible.>”high-impact breakthroughs is with those researchers >that passionately and smartly work the leading-edges,” like LENR.”LENR may be a bust but some of the techniques developed while research in LENR may turn out to be high value. I’m no authority on nuclear research but seems amount spent on such research is a drop in the bucket compared to what was spent hosting the Oscars. Which maybe all this is indicator of priorities chosen by this country.
The Gonzo-skeptics of the world will work to squash and mute you for being so open to possibility, to the unknown.
Yee-ha! I’ve been mentioned in anger on NASAWatch. I am honored.
But seriously, since you don’t know me, how the heck do you know what my ultimate goal is?
My observation was simply that this type of research is clearly outside of NASA’s charter and expertise. If it holds any promise or technical merit, it should be transferred to the DoE, which has the charter and tons of experts. Otherwise, it should be shut down as the waste of money many experts think it is.
That is the way our government works, whether or not you agree with it. If that was not the case, the Department of Agriculture would be building aircraft carriers.
No Gonzo. You were mentioned with loving warmth and caring humor. Sure, toss in the honor too. In principle I’ll agree with you – nuts should be cracked by expert nut-crackers and energy innovated by energy geeks. How’s that equation working, by the way? Do you know and work with DOE? Moving something on the fringe like LENR toward DOE would like burying it in a cemetery or dropping it into a black hole. For that to be viable – hell would freeze over first. DOE’s expertise is more along the lines of spending $30 billion over 20 years with 2,000 people, to develop a technology that might work in 2030. Developing LENR in a garage is light years away from the type of mission DOE would pursue. I’d still like to call you: “Gonzo-Skeptic, the Innovation Quasher”. A kind of attention getting branding! Is that ok with you?
LENR is not a viable solution, its not even science. Mechanism of ultra slow neutron production from nothing (endothermal -0.782 ± .013 MeV electron+proton weak(neutrino production with total loss of excess energy) reverse beta neutron decay reaction has so low probabilty that exothermal beta plus decay of diproton http://en.wikipedia.org/wik… (part of 4proton star cycle) turned red in comparrison. 10billion years for total conversion in huge million Kelvin star core (like Sun) at one side of reality and absolutly improbable process of crystal matrix somehow give for electron energy of 782kev(899 Million K) by Maxwell probabilty – I call it another universe.
That’s embarrassing.
The article contradicts itself…. first it says that the method has “demonstrated the ability to produce excess energy” then says “so far they have had to put in more energy than they get out.” This sounds like a lot of crap to me.
Michael:
The operative word here is ‘excess’. It means they got more energy out than they expected, not more than they put in. Even the big fusion research reactors ‘work’ even though none of them has put out more than was put in.
There is no scientific reason why fission can’t work with ‘lighter’ metals like nickle. Why should the laws of physics suddenly change above element 93? Transmutation of elements? Happens all the time in a nuclear power plant near you.
This idea sounds rational so I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt,,, for now.
tinker
“Why should the laws of physics suddenly change above element 93?”
First of all, this is a straw-man argument — nobody is suggesting laws of physics are different for some elements than for others.
Secondly, what does any element above 93 have to do with these LENR claims? They’re talking about using Nickel, which is element 28.
Nearly all physicists who publish in the mainstream, peer-reviewed physics journals seem to think LENR claims are bogus. The reasons that they think this boil down to two points:
1). Not all LENR proponents claim to have a theory about why LENR works, but some do. Those that do propose theories about why it works don’t claim any new physics. They claim theories that account for it under currently accepted physics. But mainstream physicists who have reviewed those theories say they are misinterpreting known physics.
2). Those LENR proponents who have claimed experimental results have never provided enough information for independent experts to reproduce the results, or the information that they have provided has revealed fundamental flaws in the experimental setup that make the results meaningless.
Here’s an example of a reputable expert on the field and his in-depth reaction to a recent, widely-publicized claim of excess energy through LENR.
Some relevant quotes:
“the would-be theoretical “explanation” – it’s ridiculously bad physics”
“The would-be paper is “published” in an online journal run by one of the claimants.”
“won’t let independent people examine the apparatus”
” so far
no version of this kind of low energy nuclear reaction business has
passed the bar of reasonable reproducibility in controlled circumstances”
http://nanoscale.blogspot.c…
“There is no scientific reason why fission can’t work with ‘lighter’ metals like nickle.”
Yes there is a physical principle at work, here, and that has to do with nuclear binding energy and the Strong nuclear force. Elements with atomic mass below the peak of the Binding energy curve (Fe-56) can liberate new binding energy through fusion of nucleons, whereas elements above the peak can liberate new binding energy through fission of an existing nucleon. Nickel, being at the peak (next to iron) of the binding energy curve, is such a tightly bound nucleus, that it is not energetically favorable (either naturally or artificially) to release energy via either fission or fusion.
It’s not the nickle that releases energy, Tritium. The reaction is not the fission or fusion of nickle, it’s the fusion of a proton with nickle. The proton goes from a binding energy of zero to about -8.5MeV when the fusion occurs.
As for why there is no research, my friend at CERN says it’s simple; it’s because there are no grants. Even physicists have to eat, and even a simple “garage” fusion experiment can easily cost $50K even if you buy most of your equipment on ebay. Ever tried to price a high-vacuum pump and a neutron detector? Most scientists don’t have that kind of money, and venture capitalists don’t allow researchers to talk. As for why there are no grants, it’s because any agency that offered them would be attacked by opportunistic politicians, and anyway with flat budgets the money would have to be taken from existing funded researchers. Anyone who thinks the grant process is apolitical probably hasn’t won any grants.
Vultere4, I was responding specifically to Justatinker, and why “fission” of Nickel is not energetically favored in Nature, nor artificially. It appears your reply has to do with so-called “LENR”, and I would be quite interested in your friend from CERN explaining the theory behind a free proton (where did that come from) “fusing” with a Nickel nucleus. This would be “proton capture” (p-Process), and the only known theoretically supported pathway for this to occur naturally is during the extremely high energies and particle densities occuring in a Supernova, or artificially in something like the LHC . In either case, energies and temperatures exist which have no correspondance with so-called “LENR”.
Whether there is a low-energy process for proton capture is unknown; that would be the point of doing the research. Obviously the coulomb barrier is higher with heavier nuclei. Proton capture by heavy elements generally does not occur in stars since they are hydrogen-poor by the time heavy elements accumulate.
Michael, I think what they really meant by the statement that “so far they had to put in more energy than they get out.” is that they modeled the system to be equivalent to the way the USG financial model works: where so far, they spend a lot more taxpayer money than the returns they get out.” Based on your observations, certainly all LENR work should be halted, forever. Entropy is winning.
“if the potential for this LENR research is so great, why is there
never any mention in NASA Spinoff documents or speeches and publications
by NASA’s Chief Technologist?”
“Potential” is not “actual”. I am very happy with the idea that the NASA Chief Technologist does NOT put out “spinoff documents or speeches and publications” until the results are confirmed. In fact, it would be idiotic to do so.
This is correct: wait until results are confirmed before publicizing them.
I don’t see any problem with spending approximately one one-millionth of the NASA budget on research on a high risk, high payoff topic. But, no, it doesn’t make sense to put out a publicity blitz on work before it’s ready.
“it doesn’t make sense to put out a publicity blitz on work before it’s ready.” Then why is it OK for NASA LaRC PAO to regular seek out media opportunities – including high visibility one such as Forbes – to discuss a technology that is not ready for prime time?
There are aspects to this that the naysayers may not realize. For example, there are indications that it is LENR effects that are causing Boing’s Dreamliner lithium-ion batteries to overheat. If so, then at the very least it is worth the research into LENR to figure out what is happening with these batteries and get the Dreamliners off the ground. I am sure Boing agrees.
“there are indications that it is LENR effects that are causing Boing’s Dreamliner lithium-ion batteries to overheat.” Says who? Where is the published research that indicates that this may be the case? Maybe they just designed the batteries wrong?
Type this into google, including the quotes: “LENR” “lithium ion”
Type in “reincarnation”, “UFOs”, “911” and “moon landing’.
Oooh ooh, “ancient aliens”, “pyramids”, “nuclear power plant”.
See, this is the kind of BS that makes me walk a very careful circle around LENR.
“There are indications” – magic passive quoting of anonymous sources.I accept the claim that maybe there are some processes, based on the known laws of physics, that we haven’t observed or understood yet. Maybe.But assertions like these, and articles like the Forbes one, they are a waste of time.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary demonstrations.
So far, there have been none.
meekGee,
I like your post, particularly the “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary demonstrations.” I’d have liked you to finish the thought process though, being something like:
If extraordinary claims required extraordinary demonstrations – those demonstrations will probably require extraordinary effort and actions and extraordinary money in order to conduct the demonstrations (or at least ‘significant’ if not ‘extraordinary’).
But to secure the needed manpower, resources and money from investors or funders, those people will need to know that extraordinary outcomes will occur. And since those outcomes would be future events, they would need to make “extraordinary claims” (or predictions of outcomes), so investors would empower the effort. Ha. It’s a circular problem.
I listened to an investor addressing a regents board at GWU once – they asked him: at what point will you be prepared to invest your millions? His instant reply was: after I see the technology is fully successful. One of those shockingly funny moments. The result: He didn’t invest, everyone else did, they won, he lost.
Now come on. If someone were to actually entertain this idea, are you saying this is specific to just Boeing lithium ion batteries?
Why is NASA spending its precious dollars chasing something outside of its charter?
Shouldn’t this be the DoE’s project? Or have their experts already dismissed it as irreproducible quackery?
Your exactly right. NASA has no business working in this field because it is not their specified mission, it is the mission of DOE. Not to mention that DOE has far better expertise on topics of energy and nuclear physics. In fact not only does NASA have no business working on this, neither should they be leading efforts on space nuclear power or propulsion. By federal law DOE is supposed to have the lead on those projects. I will however, admit that since the 1990’s congress has taken the attitude that if NASA or the Air Force wants nuclear power or propulsion they must fund it, and will not allow these projects as line items on the DOE annual budget. However, by federal law the DOE is supposed to have the lead on those topics, even if NASA has to fund them to get the final product. I say this because NASA has and is trying to do work on these topics and in my opinion they do not know what they don’t know (and will not admit to this) and make questionable technical decisions.
However, it NASA was not working on space nuclear power, then nobody would be. DOE and DOD don’t seem to be interested. I think somebody should most definitely be working on it, so by default it’s left to NASA, for better or for worse.
Actually it is just the opposite, there is huge interest in the DOE national laboratory system, bigger than in NASA. However, since NASA is allowed to have this as a line item budget and DOE is not, DOE never gets funded to do the work. The few times that NASA has had funding (it has funding now) they are supposed to be setting up a JPO and giving leadership of the project to DOE, where NASA contributes on the non nuclear related technologies. However, rightfully so, NASA never wants to give money away so they only end up involving DOE as a consultant. In most cases from my perspective the make the wrong technical decisions, DOE tells them it is a bad idea and they ignore DOE and do what they want. I would also say it is more dangerous to allow people with no expertise in nuclear do work on this topic than to just leave the topic alone. They end up making progress in the wrong direction and convince non technical management that the state of the technology is far more advanced than it is and that the cost of finishing development is much cheaper than it is in reality.
Wow, this is just embarrassing. Cold Fusion and LENR should not be funded by NASA period. This kind of stuff is killing the agency. Keith, please find out who is doing this so we can call for their removal.
That said, spaceflight requires nuclear power for many mission types. This country is the best at that and we should be using that tech already.
Cold fusion research has a far better chance of providing practical benefits for America than does the SLS, and resticting the scope of R&D beyond the expertise of the organization and researcher is a sure way to shut off innovation. Without research dollars publications are a challenge. Even a simple garage experiment can cost tens of thousands of dollars. But the field is finally sorting itself out and scientific conferences are taking place. http://iccf18.research.miss…
Its probabilty stupid. DD fusion reaction that is in the core of that crap cold fusion mess has a certain cross section and reactivity. At 1keV temp(11.59 Mill K – near star internal temperatures) it is 0.83*10exp(-22) cm3/sec and even with casual D2O density(improbable at this temps) of 1.1gram/cm3 -> 0.913*10exp(-22)gram/sec~0.46*10exp(-22)mol/sec or around 27.7 nucleus/sec/cm3 or 1.34*exp(-11)watt/cm3. Indiscernible, star matter cant even light a candle, it just enourmous mass of it that can produce enough power to sustain temperature and a fine balance between light pressure and gravitation.
DD reaction reactivity per/Temp(Kev)^2 is exponentially dropping (two orders for every order of temp drop), so approxim reactivity drops 4 orders for every order of temp drop. 1MKelvin ~ 1exp(-26)cm3/sec 1000K~1exp(-38)cm3/sec. By very rude approxim with density of 8exp(11)kg/cm3( 4exp(14) mol/cm3 2.4exp(38 nucleus) (neutron star) just 2.4 reaction per sec/cm3 of matter(1exp(-12)watt). 1 proton from galaxy radiation gives much more power than those strange cold fusion reactions. On the Earth its unmeasurable quantity trillion times weaker than thermal noise.
There is a thermic excess not explained by any theory. This is stuff for the science, where are the scientists? Fleischmann and Pons did a mistake to give bad proofs to their theory. Ok, the theory was wrong, but the thermic excess is real and waits a correct scientific interpretation and that can’t be left to garage experiments and lack of funds.
LENR is a complex area and physicists do not claim to have fully explained it. LENR clearly occurs by several mechanisms; muon capture is the best established. The unknown question is whether LENR can be a practical source of energy, and this is not a question physicists and engineers can answer without reliable data. The shortest route to a clear answer would be an adequately funded multipath research program, and even given the limited data currently available the research is clearly justified. The main reason it hasn’t occurred under DOE or NSF is that the field is still politically radioactive as a result of the Fleishman-Pons affair. Research is driven by solicitations, which are driven by politics. What work has been done on LENR is either on a shoestring or for investors who are unwilling to reveal details, consequently there is little real progress. The NASA interest may at least help get some data on record and allow rational decision making. Until then everything is speculation, even from physicists. Here’s more info http://lenr-canr.org/
vulture,
I like your summary.
Sharon Weinberger calls this “fringe science”. The NASA people involved have no expertise in any field and can’t make any contribution to LENR. They cannot even do any experiment or test to confirm results. More importantly they do not have the expertise to show it doesn’t work nor explain why it doesn’t work. Simply put, they have nothing to offer the scientific community. Why NASA is wasting over a million dollars merely doing powerpoint slides on what others are doing and doing a lot of press propaganda with no little to no scientific information is weird. HQ sticking their heads in the sand is outrageous. How about the so called “meltdowns” – where else have these been reported. I hope someone looks into this carefully – perhaps a panel of real experts like the Jasons group can look into this and report back to Congress and expose it for what it is. NASA’s propaganda about doing this LENR “fringe science” by incompetent individuals under the guise of being “open minded” or some sort of “large payoff” is misleading. Incompetent, non experts doing any kind of research is a waste. Take a look at what NASA is actually done for the million dollars- for an effort the patent office puts right up there with perpetual motion machines. I hope NASA Watch keeps posting updates on this – especially the supposed “meltdowns”
What you say makes no sense. Rather you may admit that you have an irrational bias against NASA yet enjoy the innovations arising fom this method of support that US scientific research provides.
NASA plays a big part. Explain your problem?
Rather expect improvement and relief.
There’s no fusion here nor any claim of fusion and so it’s outright misleading to title your posting “cold fusion”. It may be quackery, but it’s a different kind of quackery from cold fusion quackery.
This is the same basic thing as the purported reaction that was, ages ago, labelled “cold fusion.” So here they are now saying, no, whatever it is it’s not fusion, it was mislabelled by Pons and Fleischman. (Other people disagree.)
–Nevertheless, while it may not be fusion, that’s the name that had been (correctly or incorrectly) given to it. LENR = cold fusion; two names for the same thing.
to date, LENR is nothing. Period.
hamptonguy,
Your declaration is interesting hampton. Could you help me with the basis of your statement? Does it mean that you’ve been working with Rossi Bushnell Zawodny and the others and that you’ve personally witnessed all of the trials and have worked with all of the concepts and approaches to LENR and energy technologies adjacent to LENR? If so, it would be important that you share and publish all of those concise refutations and observed failures, for this group, NASA and the world energy community to read. Then we wouldn’t be wasting time on LENR. Perhaps a formal ban on LENR research could then be put in place.
Help me with another aspect of this type of energy research too hampton. If LENR or anything like it did truly work, it would probably be a holy grail breakthrough in energy and would be easily worth trillions of dollars. It would change the global energy infrastructure and fundamentally alter global economics and the power structures in the World.
So – why on Earth would anyone publish an energy breakthrough recipe to the entire World – the concepts, recipes, and methods to build the breakthrough technology? Do people normally publish secret methods and formulations worth trillions and just put the recipe out on the World doorstep? Especially when they might impact the oil and gas, wind, solar, hydro, and all other forms of energy infrastructure that exist today? And, any thoughts on Export and ITAR related issues in doing this breakthrough energy-recipe broadcasting?
I suppose people like Zawodny and Bushnell, as civil servants, could simply publish at a point. It would satisfy the “i have to see it, you must tell me how it works” demands that everyone has; Keith, but everyone.
From that, Zawodny and Bushnell, might get some recognition. They might get a little $1000 dollar NASA performance award at the end of the year too. Whoopee.
In a global, socialistic, one-world-order sense publication would work. Publication would enable all countries to gain and advance: China, Japan, North Korea, Iran, Russia, Saudi, India, Pakistan, Germany – easily the top 90 nations would suck it up and be making the recipe the same day. India and China seem exceedingly fast in their concept to mass manufacturing time, so they would probably be able to mass produce systems and be the World energy leaders, thanks to the publication of a viable LENR recipe. Is that the outcome that most people have in mind?
Now I’m confused. To hear NASA PR tell it, Dr. Zawodny is not chasing chemical-based cold fusion, but something else by the same name (LENR):
The nuclear reactor in your basement
http://climate.nasa.gov/new…
“In the 1980s, two scientists named Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann
announced that they had developed a “cold fusion” process that could
create fusion through chemical means, without the high temperature or
pressure of stars and bombs. There was no theory to explain how that
could be possible, and other scientists were unable to reliably
reproduce the experiments, so cold fusion lacked credibility for most
physicists. Some scientists have continued working on this idea though,
and they sometimes call it “LENR.” But this process is not what Dr. Zawodny is exploring.”
The article goes on to describe the theory and Dr. Zawodny’s approach, not in full, but at least better than the Forbes article. It sounds like Zawodny’s LENR has at least some theoretical basis, and he is taking a methodical approach to studying its feasibility that is not breaking the bank of LaRC’s technology program, let alone the Agency’s. If it works, it seems NASA would have a reliable, safe, less-controversial nuclear power source for spacecraft (and an explanation for oxygen isotopes found in the sun by the Genesis mission), and we would get at-home power generation as a “spinoff”. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.
I’m not a cold fusion nut, just new to the topic, and not sure why something that sounded pretty reasonable in that article would be pilloried here.
Kevin,
It’s easy to get confused about this (I know I do) because there is a lot of contradiction in what’s been printed. There are also a lot of people expressing opinions, but wording them as if they were facts, and that makes things really hard to sort out. One thing you can rely on — LENR is not fusion, cold or otherwise. It is something different from fusion (combining small atoms) or fission (splitting large atoms).
The current state of LENR, if you accept the claims, is that they are not, at this stage, getting more energy out than they are putting in, but they are getting more energy out (in the form of heat) than they were expecting and could account for. Current theories relate to explaining where that excess heat is coming from. The basic concept that the theory relies on is that a proton can combine with an electron to form a neutron, and likewise, a neutron can break down into a proton and a electron.
If you’re not already aware of it, the reason that fission and fusion liberate energy is because when subatomic particles either split or combine, their combined mass is not exactly the same as the sum of the individual particle masses; the tiny difference in mass is gets expressed as energy (in the amount of Einstein’s famous e=mc^2). My guess is that the energy from LENR derives from this same mechanism, but that ‘s just a guess.
Well from that it sounds like they will have a scientific discovery that is substantial whether or not it is useful for energy production whenever they figure out what is causing the unexpected additional energy release.
Agreed. But then again, it could also turn out to be a misinterpretation of what’s going on and have no practical value or scientific interest. It’s happened before. I just hope they’ll keep at it until they know for sure, one way or the other.
please note that a 5.5 million USD research project running at University of Missouri, funded by Sidney Kimmel foundation. I hope they will find answers one way or the other before the money runs out.
http://www.columbiatribune….
“The basic concept that the theory relies on is that a proton can
combine with an electron to form a neutron, and likewise, a neutron can
break down into a proton and a electron.”
Those are weak reactions (“weak” meaning “involving the weak nuclear force.”) That makes the reaction cross-section low, and the rate inherently slow.
Yes, in accordance with current theory, which is one of the things that makes this of interest to me. The energy they’re potentially attributing to a single neutron transfer would not seem at all likely, yet they claim it’s happening. So, something is not as it seems it should be. It would be real easy to simply hold fast to current theories and dismiss any other possibilities out of hand. But that’s exactly the attitude that’s delayed science many times over the years (util the old guard died off), so I hope they’ll follow through looking for repeatable observations, and just maybe it’ll be time for a little revision of current theories. I’m not holding my breath just yet, but I think the potential of this is just too big to ignore.
A free neutron can break down to yield a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. The various forms of beta decay are discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
Cowling is a pretty grumpy curmudgeon most of the time but he’s dead on here. NASA needs to be good stewards of taxpayer money. At the very least this research needs to set measurable goals and, after 3 1/2 years, a report or reports on the progress. JPL is the only place any good work is going on at NASA. The rest of it is a mess.
“JPL is the only place any good work is going on at NASA. The rest of it is a mess.“
Wow! That’s a might wild statement. I strongly suspect there’s a few tens of thousands of people who would disagree with you.
And your response is typical of someone with an opinion but nothing to support it. If you read npng’s comment, he makes perfect sense, and does so completely independent of the subject matter. If, by chance, a new development should have such wide ranging affect on the economy and society as a whole as a new, clean power source would, not only would it be financially idiotic to give it away for free by explaining it in order to prove it, it would almost certainly result in the discoverers facing criminal charges for the extensive upset that disclosure would introduce to so many industries, companies, and family incomes. The destructive effects of such an act are so obvious that doing it could only be considered malicious. If anybody did have a demonstration LENR system that worked as declared, step one would be to protect it as carefully as Fort Knox. Unless such a system is introduced in a very careful way, a great deal of damage can be done and control of it will be lost almost immediately, along with all of the benefits it would offer mankind. If it turned out that a LENR power source, or something like it really existed, it wouldn’t be a game changer, it would be a world changer.
It may be that LENR is not for real and will never turn into anything useful; time will tell. However, it annoys me how many people appear to hold an opinion on the matter simply inherited from someone else, rather than based on any specific reasons.
Ics,
Your comment is amusing, your motive transparent. Bring it on.
George H Miley has just been granted a US patent for a working LENR device.
http://coldfusionnow.org/an…