Quack Science: Why Are NASA Glenn and Langley Funding Cold Fusion Research?
Cold Fusion: NASA Says Nothing Useful, Forbes
“I find it interesting and rather puzzling that the summary states that LENR is the new name for cold fusion (thereby implying that the two terms describe the same process) when many other people and organizations argue that these are quite different phenomena. I’d love to read a simple explanation of the difference between LENR and cold fusion that doesn’t use explanations that themselves require further, and equally complex, explanations. Anyway, it appears that the NASA recently published something much more interesting about Low Energy Nuclear Reaction or LENR. Last Wednesday, with a minimum of fuss, NASA’s Glenn Research Center released a video on their Web site that discussed the organization’s LENR research.”
Why is NASA Langley Wasting Time on Cold Fusion Research?, earlier post
Keith’s note: It should be quite obvious that NASA Headquarters exerts little – if any – control over what its field centers do – especially when quack science is concerned. At a time when NASA is trying to justify its relevance, the continued semi-clandestine support for this goofy fringe science calls into question the process whereby NASA decides what should be funded – and why. Here’s the official NASA video. And just who is advising Ray Lugo or Lesa Roe on this wacky stuff? Let’s see how (or if) NASA PAO responds. If this is the big deal that some folks at NASA claim it is (see patent application below) then why is NASA Headquarters silent on this topic – especially given that Charlie Bolden is mentioned (by position) on the patent application?
Method for Producing Heavy Electrons, United States Patent Application
Zawodny; Joseph M.; (Poquoson, VA) Assignee: USA as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC
“[0032] The advantages of the present invention are numerous. Devices/systems made in accordance with the present invention control the frequency of the SPP resonance and its uniformity over large surface or volume regions. This will allow an entire device to participate in heavy electron production and ensuing energy generation. The present invention is adaptable to a variety of physical states/geometries and is scalable in size thereby making it available for energy production in a wide variety of applications (e.g., hand-held and large scale electronics, automobiles, aircraft, surface ships, electric power generation, rockets, etc.)”
Only goofy until its main stream.
http://www.youtube.com/watc…
No, it’s only goofy until someone demonstrates that the device can do what the inventor claims. That means an independent test or at least an open, nothing-up-my-sleeves test with nothing hidden.
With the eCat device in your video, that has not happened. So far it’s no different than the usual claims of working perpetual motion machines: Demonstrations have been given, controlled by the inventor, and we have to take the inventor’s word that the device is doing what he claims. A device is available for witnesses to examine, but a different device – hidden in thick insulation – is used in the test.
Yes, those waving their pom-poms for eCat are happy to see your video of a senior research scientist at NASA, Joseph Zawodny endorsing the device. Do a Google search on [Joseph Zawodny eCat], and you’ll find endless web pages holding the video as proof that eCat works. That’s its ability to produce more power than it takes in has been demonstrated. After all, a NASA scientist says so.
But wait… Does Mr. Zawodny really say that? The video is rather vague on that point. Let’s check his blog:
http://joe.zawodny.com/inde…
He makes it clear that with fusion research in general – NOT specific to eCat…
“When considered in aggregate I believe excess power has been demonstrated. I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable. If any of those other terms were applicable I would have used them instead.”
Then, referring to eCat/LENR:
“If anything, it is the lack of a single clear demonstration of reliable, useful, and controllable production of excess power that has held LENR research back.”
[…]
“There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works. Many extraordinary claims have been made in 2010. In my scientific opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find a distinct absence of the latter. So let me be very clear here. While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy.”
Read the whole article. It won’t tell you what you want to hear, but it’ll tell you what you SHOULD hear.
This thread and my comments were not about an ECat or any other commercial device but if NASA should be looking into what is going on with LENR. The original tone of Keith’s headline and comments seemed to be that studying LENR was foolish and a waste of money.
ECat figures heavily in the Forbes article that is the subject of this thread.
Your YouTube link that I responded to opens with “Don’t miss any future eCat News – Subscribe Now!” Below the video are links like “What is the eCat? ” and “For crucial updates on the latest E-Cat and LENR news please visit…” As the scientist featured in the video points out on his blog, “There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works.”
But OK; other than all that, this thread and your comments were not about ECat.
My response to your “Only goofy until its main stream” claim still stands. The Loch Ness Monster is “main stream.” It’s still goofy, for the same lack-of-evidence reason. When a video is waved about as proof that LENR is main-stream science – and the featured scientist actually points out a lack of demonstrated evidence for it, it doesn’t help your case.
Looks like they have positive progress to report much like the US Navy on this topic. Several private companies are supposedly producing products with LENR as the energy source. So don’t deride it too much, I hope you are eating these words soon…. Basic research has merit even if this time it does not turn out to be the breakthrough they think it is.. but these articles just appear small minded. LENR may well be real and it just may save the space program and the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watc…
Please post links/references to peer-reviewed publications … they are hard to find on this topic, aren’t they? Hmm … wonder why ….
Keith, likely not peer reviewed, but AMOCO investigated the P&F configuration on their own. Report here:
http://newenergytimes.com/v…
“The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment….”
Likely not enough to convince you, but these are the types of reports I “ponder…”
@ kcowing this pitch references 23 peer reviewed articles on LENR:
http://www.youtube.com/watc…
here you go:
http://newenergytimes.com/v…
In discussing this we should be aware that Zawodny posted this paragraph in his personal blog (
http://joe.zawodny.com/ ) :
“There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works. Many extraordinary claims have been made in 2010. In my scientific opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find a distinct absence of the latter. So let me be very clear here. While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy.”
As I have pondered this area over the years, I believe “something is happening” in these D-Pd and perhaps also in the H-Ni system, but I don’t believe we yet know “what” that is. Sometimes it works, oftentimes it doesn’t. We do not understand the guiding parameters to optimize the yield or get to the core phenomena. Worthy of some 6.1 research, you bet (IMHO), ready for prime time, not by a mile…
That said, one test of the eCat or Hyperion in a “credentialed lab” with gamma ray spectrometry, neutron spectrometry and the ability to do isotopic analysis of the pre and post test “fuel” would tell the story. I would not be surprised if both corporate and government labs of the caliber necessary to do these tests have made the offer… Until such tests are done, peer reviewed and published, I for one am a skeptic.
I therefore share Zawodny’s belief: “That extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Zawodny and Bushnell have been promoting this thing for a long time now. What happened here is he got a lot of negative feedback from the video so he is backtracking, but if you look at his earlier presentations which are also all over the net it is a different story. In fact he can be seen promoting zero point energy machines and everything. Some people should stay in their own fields (in the case of Zawodny that is atmospheric science) and leave the nuclear physics for those who know what they are doing.
http://newenergytimes.com/v…
hre is the link directly form NASA:
http://technologygateway.na…
and a pitch
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7…
and NASA got a patent on the process last year
Kieth, I think you are jumping the gun. There are private comapnies in the LENR field that are making wild and unsubstantiated claims, and might reasonably be called quacks. I would give no credence to anyone who claims “proprietary” secrets. But there are a number of experiments that have demonstrated consistent results and provide substantial evidence that unexpected nuclear interactions do occur at energies below the coulomb barrier. This is a long way from saying that LENR is a practical energy source, but neither is it fair to dismiss it as “quack science”. The way to the truth, as in global warming, is to be skeptical of extreme views on either side and support methodical investigation by researchers who do not have a personal stake in the answer. The current situation, in which anyone who asks questions is likely to lose research funding is unscientific and unamerican.
As for quack science – that is what this is. Care to dispute? Then please post links/references to peer-reviewed publications … they are hard to find on this topic, aren’t they?
This thread and my comments were not about an ECat or any other commercial device but if NASA should be looking into what is going on with LENR. The original tone of Keith’s headline and comments seemed to be that studying LENR was foolish and a waste of money.
Yes, this is foolish and a waste of money.
NASA should use that money to fund the Polywell research being done by Energy/Matter Conversion Corp. (EMC2).
The NAVY feels it shows promise or they wouldnt be funding it.
Google “Fusor”.
If it didnt work somewhat, then NSD-Fusion wouldnt be selling a fusor as a commercial neutron source.
The fact that fusors work as neutron sources should not be confused with the ability to build an energy source. A fusor is a tremendous energy sink, not a source, with the shortfall ratio measured in many orders of magnitude. They make great neutron sources and great science fair projects. (There were *three* working fusors at the last Intel international high school science fair, with one being used as a neutron source for detecting nuclear material in shipments.)
The Polywell is an interesting concept and should be funded by the DOE. Neither NASA nor the Navy should be putting funds into it until the basic physics and engineering have been worked out to the point that you can at least imagine a break-even device.
At least the Polywell concept is not based on totally made-up physics, like the original topic here. Keith is correct: LENR is a waste of money for NASA, with the only result being to make NASA look silly. It would not be within the domain of NASA or the Navy to investigate the physics, even if there were something to it. Such basic physics research would be funded by the DOE or NSF until something is actually proven and repeatable.
I’m afraid that almost everything I read about LENR, cold fusion, or any similar concepts I end up considering pointless text, because there is not a consistent set of definitions and their claims do not compare apples and apples. There are very basic issues, like the fact that an “energy source” can be almost anything with a net energy gain at some point in the process, but what good is that. The goal is (or should be) a net energy gain over the entire process from start to finish, and an output in a usable, accessible form. A device that produces neutrons can be very useful in certain limited instances, but electricity ready to connect to the grid (the holy grail) is a very different thing.
When you analyze these reports and claims in terms of input energy and output energy (as electricity, not heat or motion or subatomic particles) you’ll find that the second law of thermodynamics still holds.
You also have to consider things like how controllable the system is and rate of delivery of output (if these things didn’t matter, then we could run our cities off atomic bombs).
I am entirely in favor of research into these far out concepts. but I don’t see how anyone can legitimately claim success at this time. I have yet to read of a “cold” net-energy-gain source that I can plug a simple electric light bulb into and have it light up.
Steve
More quak science at MIT I see:
http://cleantechauthority.c…
Cold fusion is two elements merging to form another element. there is extra elements left over which give off heat.
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) is an accidental discovery while attempting cold fusion, but is basically stealing energy from existing atoms (hydrino theories) or in other some descriptions it uses free floating neutrons (that are created), and the join existing elements (fuels them), and then they break free in a burst of heat. Since no new element is formed it is not cold fusion.