Chief Scientist of NASA Langley research center confirms 'cold fusion' is real

[Mn_Mark]

http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.go...reactions.html

A summary of the main points in his news release (from here via here) (my emphasis in bold):

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, the Realism and the Outlook
by Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center

REALISM

• hundreds of experiments worldwide indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input
• evidence indicates something real is occurring
• with effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc
• This is far from a “Narrow Band” set of physical phenomena
• several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted, indicating when the conditions are “right” prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released
• are in fact inventing (in real time) the requisite engineering, along with verifying the physics

OUTLOOK

• NASA Langley, the epiphany moment on LENR was the publication of the Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction LENR Theory
• theory indicates energy densities, some several million times chemical. The current experiments are in the 10′s to hundreds range
• still far from the theoretical limits of the weak interaction physics for LENR performance
• given the truly massive-to-mind boggling benefits – solutions to climate, energy and the limitations that restrict the NASA Mission areas, all of them. The key to space exploration is energetics. The key to supersonic transports and neighbor-friendly personal fly/drive air vehicles is energetics, as simplex examples of the potential implications of this area of research
• 1% of the nickel mined on the planet each year could produce the world’s energy requirements at the order of 25% the cost of coal
• it is worth far more resources than are currently being devoted to this research arena

[c1ue]

Re: Chief Scientist of NASA Langley research center confirms 'cold fusion' is real

You left out several key parts:

1) laboratory replication is almost totally lacking
2) cold fusion in 'not' possible. Widow Larsen beta decay, however, is
3) experiments to date are Edisonian, I.e. Uncontrolled

As for labs blowing up- all the experiments involve hydrogen. You know, like what blew the stack of fukushima?

The point of widow Larsen, if I understand it correctly, is that a type of nuclear reaction can occur under certain circumstances. What does that mean though? Fission reactions, for example, are not deterministic on an individual atom level. If you have a large enough number, however, probabilistically a certain number of fissions will occur and energy released.

However, this applies equally to any and every other atom out there. It is just that for most other atoms, this probability is so low as to be effectively zero.

If Widom Larsen is in fact real and sufficiently probabilistic to be engineered, then we might have a potential energy source, though it is very far from clear how useful this will be. If, for example, tremendously expensive and/or rare materials are needed - like plutonium, not so great. If the probabilities are too low, equally jot so great - it likely means the engineered paths are far too unreliable or unstable.

However, there still isn't validation or even a well documented description. So far the proof still hasn't been in the pudding. The real physicists on iTulip can comment.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Chief Scientist of NASA Langley research center confirms 'cold fusion' is real

You left out several key parts:

1) laboratory replication is almost totally lacking
2) cold fusion in 'not' possible. Widow Larsen beta decay, however, is
3) experiments to date are Edisonian, I.e. Uncontrolled

As for labs blowing up- all the experiments involve hydrogen. You know, like what blew the stack of fukushima?

The point of widow Larsen, if I understand it correctly, is that a type of nuclear reaction can occur under certain circumstances. What does that mean though? Fission reactions, for example, are not deterministic on an individual atom level. If you have a large enough number, however, probabilistically a certain number of fissions will occur and energy released.

However, this applies equally to any and every other atom out there. It is just that for most other atoms, this probability is so low as to be effectively zero.

If Widom Larsen is in fact real and sufficiently probabilistic to be engineered, then we might have a potential energy source, though it is very far from clear how useful this will be. If, for example, tremendously expensive and/or rare materials are needed - like plutonium, not so great. If the probabilities are too low, equally jot so great - it likely means the engineered paths are far too unreliable or unstable.

However, there still isn't validation or even a well documented description. So far the proof still hasn't been in the pudding. The real physicists on iTulip can comment.

From the second paragraph of Bushnell's news release:

The current situation is that we now have over two decades of hundreds of experiments worldwide indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input. By any rational measure, this evidence indicates something real is occurring. So, is LENR "Real?" Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse experimental evidence. And, yes - with effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is far from a "Narrow Band" set of physical phenomena.

So it doesn't sound like "laboratory replication is almost totally lacking."

You are correct, this is not cold fusion; I used "cold fusion" in the title because most people don't know what "LENR" means yet.

[Shakespear]

Re: Chief Scientist of NASA Langley research center confirms 'cold fusion' is real

Thanks Mark for bringing this here. Certainly sounds like we may be in for some radical change in understanding physics which as history points out is normal.

Take a look at this discovery that doesn't get much press,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-h56N_A3rY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB4swOx4n-0

For years not even the Polish gov would help to allow the man to get a patent. Then suddenly Univ. of Cambridge OBTAINED a patent !!! Now the family needs to fight in the EU bureaucracy over something that they officially announced already in 1998. The breaking of "Enigma" has similar overtones.

Not quite the same as "cold fusion" but shows an interesting "mechanism". Imagine this technology when applied to bumpers in cars, ports, space vehicles etc.. Would that be revolutionary?

[bungee]

Re: Chief Scientist of NASA Langley research center confirms 'cold fusion' is real

Certainly sounds like we may be in for some radical change in understanding physics which as history points out is normal.

The observed rate of radioactive decay which seems to correspond to the sun position / seasons also seems to hint at some new unexplained physics

http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/f...ysics-edition/

Do LENR also show a seasonal bias?

[c1ue]

Re: Chief Scientist of NASA Langley research center confirms 'cold fusion' is real

The current situation is that we now have over two decades of hundreds of experiments worldwide indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input. By any rational measure, this evidence indicates something real is occurring. So, is LENR "Real?" Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse experimental evidence. And, yes - with effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is far from a "Narrow Band" set of physical phenomena.

That sounds nice, but the reality is that nothing has yet to be duplicated.

Thus not only the reality, but the theory and means are at a point where nobody knows anything. Or put another way: with so many people working on this, and with such a gigantic payoff - why is there still no obvious proof?

Sure, maybe there is something there.

But, so long as experiments cannot be devised which can reliably demonstrate the effect, the potential as a power source is zero.

I'll point out that for every Wright Brothers explosion in aircraft theory and development, there are dozens of other breakthroughs in technology - like the attempts to productize lighter than air - which went nowhere.

As I noted above: if in fact Widom Larsen is real, it still doesn't mean a usable energy source. Maybe the ignition of the process is caused by a neutrino flying through the agglomeration. Maybe the ignition is purely random and on a low order of probability. Maybe there's a whole bunch of wishful thinking and/or outright fraud involved.

Whatever is or is not there - it has to be demonstrable and repeatable, and thus far neither criteria have been fulfilled.