Cold Fusion article in Popular Science Nov 2012

Wow, that one was a surprise! Could it be that mainstream media are now getting aware of recent Cold Fusion/LENR work?

The article in Popular Science is mostly about Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat. The writer did his job very well though by interviewing the skeptics and supporters and visiting Rossi in his workshop in Italy. Go and read it!


PS: To make the whole story more exciting there is another post by Mark Gibbs from Forbes reporting about a positive third party test of Defkalion GT(formerly related to Rossi) cold fusion device. The third party here was Michael A. Nelson, a NASA employee on behalf of the so called Free Energy Foundation. www.forbes.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Just think if a fraction of that money was put towards cold fusion research, we could solve some of the worlds worst humanitarian problems.

Then again, what would happen to the MIC?

Sadly, defense (lets just call it the Offense budget shall we) is more important than ending our use of fossil fuels, making high costs of producing and transporting food and water non existent, and generally making the world a less insane place.

reply to post by cconn487

Somehow I feel we are close to a critical point regarding cold fusion, from which on things could happen very fast with massive impact on our technological and economic state.

Originally posted by cconn487
en.wikipedia.org...

Just think if a fraction of that money was put towards cold fusion research, we could solve some of the worlds worst humanitarian problems.

Then again, what would happen to the MIC?

Sadly, defense (lets just call it the Offense budget shall we) is more important than ending our use of fossil fuels, making high costs of producing and transporting food and water non existent, and generally making the world a less insane place.

If any research on this planet of any subject consumed billions[ over 50 years and still no result and they still ask for money for more research you would think somebody would say : Nope, it's a waste of money. But.....it's not a waste of money if the true intention is nuclear weapons simulation. That's what the fusion programs are mainly used for! Not a guess or a conspiracy, it's openly admitted but not readily available. The quick half page description used for news media only has space for "energy of the future". The full document going over pages explaining all that occurs in the facilities has that wee nuclear weapons nugget embedded in there....

If cold fusion was to work (and I'm not saying it does) then hot fusion research would have no reason to continue unless the governments involved admitted openly why its needed. At which point the public would be protesting on the streets at the phenomenal waste of money to learn how to blow each other up in more efficient ways.

Sorry, but as long as there's money to be made in oil, coal and natural gas, alternate energy wil never stand a chance.

I don't agree, but, the government couldn't support the jobs that would be lost! Or the loss of revenue from no longer collecting taxes, etc.

reply to post by ctdannyd

I have to disagree. According to your logic, we neither would have nuclear nor hydroelectric power.

Originally posted by moebius
PS: To make the whole story more exciting there is another post by Mark Gibbs from Forbes reporting about a positive third party test of Defkalion

Postive? Gee, way to spin it in a direction it is not.

Now, before you jump to the conclusion that his comments completely validate cold fusion, please re-read them very carefully … what he’s saying is that the results look promising but further study needs to be done.

...which quite frankly, is no more than the situation has ever been for all these years.

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by ctdannyd

 

I have to disagree. According to your logic, we neither would have nuclear nor hydroelectric power.

Nuclear power got it's start from nuclear weapons; it was hard to argue against some public usefulness and it's certainly a good cover for keeping nuclear weapons regulations weak and proliferation largely impossible. After all if the US does not arm it's future enemies how are they supposed to ever look like threats?

As for hydroelectricity countries were and are still building dams and considering the return on investment and the large investments required the states/corporations of the world are not afraid that this will change the global energy game.

It is fine to disregard the questions raised by experiments suggesting some LENR but perhaps you should consider making more technical, or at least more accurate, criticism?

Cheers,

Stellar

reply to post by alfa1

No idea what your definition of positive is. But we have here a scientist doing an independent test and stating a COP of over 1. Looks positive to me. Of course he will ask for more test and replication either would I.

Btw when did we have this before? Do you have more info?

reply to post by StellarX

It is fine to disregard the questions raised by experiments suggesting some LENR but perhaps you should consider making more technical, or at least more accurate, criticism?

Going ad hominem? In what areas was my criticism non technical or not accurate

Nuclear power is the primary power source in France (80% or something) and represents 13.5% of world electricity production. Hydropower represents 19% of total world electricity production. They are alternatives to fossil fuel and they are clearly competitive else they wouldn't be employed.

Originally posted by moebius
Of course he will ask for more test and replication either would I.
Btw when did we have this before?

We've had this before, ever since cold fusion was "discovered" by Fleischmann and Pons.
Lovely test results, but more test and replication is needed.
Thats all its ever been.

I see nothing different in this Defkalion GT article in Forbes magazine.
They announce lovely test results, but more test and replication is needed.

Originally posted by ctdannyd
Sorry, but as long as there's money to be made in oil, coal and natural gas, alternate energy wil never stand a chance.

I don't agree, but, the government couldn't support the jobs that would be lost! Or the loss of revenue from no longer collecting taxes, etc.

It will take decades to develop LENR and retrofit existing power plants. During the transition, energy companies will evolve to develop and sell alternate energy.
Given energy densities, wind and solar will become niche products. Nickel producing countries will become the new middle east energy sources and burglars will leave the silverware and steal the stainless flatware. Actually, it won't be that extreme, as Ni that has been depleted in the active isotope will become available for steel alloys and ores now uneconomical to mine will be recovered. Likely there will be a Ni price spike and stock price spike for Norilsk, Vale, and Billeton but reality should set in after a while and things will stabilize.

Im no scientist, i had HIGH hopes
on the A.Rossi device..
He failed. Me that is..
He hasnt proven ANYTHING, yet...
And its been, a year? Since he said
he actually had the working thing..


Popular Science might be duped too...

reply to post by alfa1

Sure there have been researchers claiming to have measured excess heat in their own experiments. But was there ever a case where a third party (independent scientist) validated the claims? Afaik the NASA guy was able to use his own instrumentation and mess with the test setup.

Well I am no Scientist but I believe in the work Martin Fleischmann. Unfortunatley he died a couple months ago and joined the other people who have the knowlege to change things but not the power. RIP Martin!

Originally posted by moebius
Going ad hominem? In what areas was my criticism non technical or not accurate

Not yet, no. Since it was one line post there was not much room for either technical detail or accuracy hence my comment suggesting that you try that out...

Nuclear power is the primary power source in France (80% or something) and represents 13.5% of world electricity production.

Yes and as i pointed out that France and the US are both nuclear states as well and i doubt nuclear power would have been wide scale use if not for the vast government funds required AND the primarily defense aim of investing in this industry at all. You also do not account for the fact that nuclear power is a highly centralized power generation scheme and the funding and operational contracts goes to the same class of people as those in control of our fossil fuel industry and provides them with the same high profits and similar control over the market.

Hydropower represents 19% of total world electricity production. They are alternatives to fossil fuel and they are clearly competitive else they wouldn't be employed.

Why does hydropower represent only 19% of the world's electricity generation capacity? Why does China lead the US with capacity that will soon be nearly three times as large? Could it be that in China the state looks at what is 'efficient' ( the three gorges generates so much electricity that it will return it's construction cost in less than a decade) and not only at what enriches the private sector/industry? Why would nuclear power be so big considering the fact that most countries have rivers but few have uranium? Where is the logic ( You having a affinity for logic) in how countries generate their electricity and can we really establish a clear link between the cost ( including the environmental cost; coal power has put more radioactive material into our atmosphere than nuclear testing by a wide margin) and why governments choose certain generation methods over others?

I do not think that these costs ARE easy to establish but what i think we can establish is that governments ( which in capitalist countries means industry) favor centralized power generation over decentralized power generation and that that since the cost is so mostly shifted onto the tax payers why can we not at least get the cleanest power we know we can practically generate? I mean we fund every defense department agency there are and if those were put to clean&cheap energy research ( if we the people had such political clout) do we doubt we would have it?

I do believe that LENR happens and i also believe that we could probably extract energy from the vacuum ( if you would believe some writers that is exactly what conventional generators does) and i think one could believe in these things by just taking stock of how inefficiently things are currently done and the lack of attempts to change the status quo.

Stellar

I didn't see any measurement of neutron flux in the report. If no neutrons are produced, it is not fusion, merely a novel exothermic chemical reaction. Sorry. (That's not to say it may not be an alternative to burning hydrocarbons; it's just not fusion.)

Edit to add: Link to Executive Summary:

www.defkalion-energy.com...

reply to post by moebius
I guess popsci doesn't have the new story on their website yet?

I only found the link to this old story.
www.popsci.com...

Originally posted by alfa1
We've had this before, ever since cold fusion was "discovered" by Fleischmann and Pons.
Lovely test results, but more test and replication is needed.
Thats all its ever been.

I see nothing different in this Defkalion GT article in Forbes magazine.
They announce lovely test results, but more test and replication is needed.

I agree.

What puzzles me is a few years ago the US Navy announced neutrons in their cold fusion research and it sounded very promising, but then they closed the project. A physicist I discussed this with said detecting neutrons was hard and that could have been an error.

But I never found any good explanation about why the Navy discontinued the cold fusion research project after publishing such seemingly promising results. Maybe just too many years and dollars spent with no tangible results?

It's just one more dead end.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Not sure if it is available online, get the magazine.

reply to post by DJW001

Well, I have no idea what it is. Cold fusion is just the name that stuck with it. But from the claimed energy densities it can not be a chemical reaction.