Feds May Have Made A Huge Breakthrough In Cold Fusion

Wouldn't it be neat if cold fusion can be proved and actually work as once advertised !
The Link is fro Yahoo news and sometimes the links work and sometimes they don't... if interested and the link does not work just do the headline..

A report from the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) claimed government researchers had confirmed the existence of a cold fusion nuclear reaction. The report was allegedly authored by scientists from Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command and the University of New Mexico.

However there is a possible excuse for the supposedly talked about results that does not involve cold fusion...

“My instinct is to ascribe these results to cosmic ray deuterons interacting with the palladium deuteride. I would be want this potential background to be addressed before I could interpret this as a finding of new physics.” Dr. Jeffrey Eldred, a particle accelerator physicist who works at Fermilab, told The DCNF. “Isotope effects on superconductivity have been demonstrated prior to these results.”

Like I said it would be neat if it works.

hsrd.yahoo.com...=1/RE=1474870139/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RB=/RU=aHR0cDovL3BlYWtvaWwuY29tL2FsdGVybmF0aXZlLWVuZXJneS9mZWRzLW1heS1oYXZlLW1hZGUtYS 1odWdlLWJyZWFrdGhyb3VnaC1pbi1jb2xkLWZ1c2lvbgA-/RS=%5EADAn9m4.IRNtUd_rAxzM9a03ZUBrjs-

Are you confusing LENR with cold fusion? It's a common mistake.

The source paper is actually a compilation of research.
fehnblog.de...

originally posted by: Phage
Are you confusing LENR with cold fusion? It's a common mistake.
fehnblog.de...

Maybe... I went with the title of the article..

a reply to: 727Sky

Yeah.

Stay away from titles and go for the meat.

Link's busted, but is this the palladium/deuterium reaction controversy that's been running for years? There's a constant low-level interest in that from the DoD, I find it very interesting that nobody's been able to conclusively prove or disprove this supposed effect yet, even 20+ years after the original paper by Fleischmann and Pons. Realistically I sort of doubt that it'll be an energy revolution, we're much further ahead on traditional high-temperature fusion for that, but it's definitely worth keeping an eye on.

EDIT: LENR and the Fleischmann/Pons "cold fusion'" experiment are the same thing, just a more accurate name. Fusion would have a distinctive radiation signature that's not been observed with LENR (I think), but the popular media and layman's term is cold fusion.

a reply to: Phage

Off sub.
Did scientist make salt water combustable? Expensive if true?

a reply to: Bigburgh

Did scientist make salt water combustable?

Not that I know of.

originally posted by: Phage
Are you confusing LENR with cold fusion? It's a common mistake.

The source paper is actually a compilation of research.
fehnblog.de...

Speaking of LENR, whatever happeed to Rossi and his device?

a reply to: OneGoal

Nothing.

a reply to: Phage

That's what i figured. Whats your take on it Phage?

Bogus.. ok😊

originally posted by: ShadeWolf
Link's busted, but is this the palladium/deuterium reaction controversy that's been running for years? There's a constant low-level interest in that from the DoD, I find it very interesting that nobody's been able to conclusively prove or disprove this supposed effect yet, even 20+ years after the original paper by Fleischmann and Pons. Realistically I sort of doubt that it'll be an energy revolution, we're much further ahead on traditional high-temperature fusion for that, but it's definitely worth keeping an eye on.

EDIT: LENR and the Fleischmann/Pons "cold fusion'" experiment are the same thing, just a more accurate name. Fusion would have a distinctive radiation signature that's not been observed with LENR (I think), but the popular media and layman's term is cold fusion.

You say "prove or disprove", but I'd hazard the guess that by not proving it, it has been disproved. That is sort of how things work in the scientific community: tests can either be repeated, or they can not. If they cannot be repeated on demand, that in and of itself nullifies any validity the test may have had.

To be fair, I'm not sure what the US and the "common core" things have changed, but at least what I learnt in the '80s said that for something to be proven in the affirmative, it must be able to be repeated. But then again, the scientists were talking about a coming ice age and not global warming....

a reply to: OneGoal

Rossi?

My take is that he's a scammer.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky

Yeah.

Stay away from titles and go for the meat.

Extremely long PDF file speaking of the various test equipment used and the results gathered. Very dry reading as they are clarifying the test results and the test equipment used with graphs and pictures of the test plates.

lenr-canr.org...

Significant results of the sequential etching are summarized in Figure 3.1-9. Sequential
etching of detector 10-7 showed proton recoil tracks. Figure 3.1-9a shows the proton recoil
spectrum obtained for detector 10-7. It is compared to the proton recoil spectrum obtained for
252Cf neutrons. This comparison shows that detector 10-7 has been exposed to 2.3-2.45 MeV
neutrons. The neutron emission rate was estimated to be 1-3 n/s. Blank detectors did not show
proton recoils inside the detector indicating that the source of the neutrons observed in detector
10-7 was the Pd/D deposit on the Ag cathode. Figure 3.1-9b shows the spectrum obtained for the
front side of detector 10-5 after 21 h of etching. The tracks are identified to be due to 3 MeV
protons and alphas of energies of 12 and 16 MeV.
3.1.5 Summary of LET spectrum analysis of CR-39 detectors used in the SRI replication
Dazhong Zhou, of NASA-Johnson Space Center, took the scanned data of detectors 10-5 and
10-6 that Forsley had done and analyzed them using a LET spectrum method.28-33 Applying the
LET spectrum method to the scanned data, the LET spectrum ( differential and integral fluence),
Figure 3.1-10, and energy distributions of the charged particles, Figure 3.1-11, were determined.
For protons, a the major peak is observed at ~ 11.5 – 12 MeV for the front CR-39 surfaces and

The problem IMO is the always presence of cosmic rays which can screw up the best test and the measuring equipment .. However the test that were conducted were very thorough with the testing equipment available; yet questions still remain.

These results suggest that multiple channels are possible, i.e., one channel results in heat and 4He,
another results in neutrons, and yet another tritium. The implication is that by controlling
experimental parameters, it should be possible to switch back and forth over the various
channels, a concept that Swartz35 refers to as the ‘optimal operating points (OOPs).

The PDF does speak about LENR and its' importance:

Once understood, LENR has the potential to be a paradigm-shifting, ‘game-changing’
technology. Nuclear energy systems have power densities six orders of magnitude greater than
chemically-based energy generation or storage systems. The ability to harness a new nuclear
energy source for either thermal or electrical conversion, without the generation of penetrating
energetic particles, would have a profound commercial and military impact ranging from small
footprint power systems to mobile systems to larger stationary power systems. Depending on
how the technology scales, it could be used as a power source for expeditionary warfare and
military bases as well as surface ships/submarines; nuclear battery for autonomous C4I
operations (communications, computers, satellites); and long duration UAV and USV ops
(propulsion). Such a technology would have a profound effect upon one of the U.S. and DoD’s
largest financial and environmental costs: burning hydrocarbons from imported oil and gas with
their attendant CO2 footprint. Indeed, many U.S. military actions this century, and the most
costly in the 1990’s, have been driven by, or consequences of, the geopolitics of oil. Decreasing
the use of foreign oil would result in both an energy savings and a reduction in US military
presence, and fleet costs, in maintaining access to foreign oil and natural reserves.

Also to add,

DTRA wouldn't really have anything to do with cold fusion if it had been achieved. They do work with the National Labs, but they mostly focus on gear for detecting or mitigating CBRNE threats and programs for modeling fallout and whatnot and developing training for military/law enforcement.

But it's been a while since I worked with those guys so they may have gone in a different direction since then.

a reply to: watchitburn

Then it makes sense---they have strong expertise in experimental nuclear particle monitoring and attribution of weak signal vs background processes.

China Lake has had an ongoing LENR/CF program for ages. Naval Weapons also has something along that line as well as Polywell.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah a guy trying to create a cancer cure did it using high energy rf bombardment.

What it's useful for I'm not sure, I don't think he was either. Pretty sure that he died from the cancer he had though.

a reply to: paradoxious

To be fair to the whole LENR cold fusion thing it hasn't been entirely disproven. The problem with it is sometimes the experiments work, sometimes not, and pretty much never with the same results even when doing the same experiment with the same equipment in the same place.

It's kind of science's own personal ongoing wtf moment.

However, it's also a lightning rod for woo, I want to believe types, and those who wouldn't believe it even if you ran the eastern seaboard on a generator the size of a Mr. Coffee.