Cold Fusion and the Electric Sun?

[bitterbonker]

Hi everyone, I'm new to the forums, but over the last few months I've been filling my head with Plasma Cosmology info. I was led to this essential hypothesis by the simple question if why planetary orbits do not decay under a gravity-driven universe. And, more fundamentally, what is the *cause* of gravity? I believe that an electromagnetic source of gravity is not only the most plausible possibility to date, but it also leads to the possibility that gravity can be manipulated and controlled in much the same way that we now control the EM forces with technology. Amazing!

In that vein, interested in emerging energy technologies, I was interested in people's thoughts about the electric sun hypotheses with regard to the cold fusion phenomenon (which is now quite well documented?). Particularly, it's noteworthy that cold fusion is produced by simple electrolysis - in principle the same way the electric sun is proposed to be powered. I've provided some information about the state of cold fusion today for the reference of anyone reading.

Thanks,

Bryan

--------------------


At a press conference held at the University of Utah, American Stanley Pons (professor of chemistry & chairman of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Utah), and British colleague Martin Fleischmann (professor of electrochemistry at the University of Southampton, England & Fellow of the Royal Society), really did disclose an amazingly simple method to create power-producing nuclear reactions—possibly fusion—not at hundreds of millions of degrees in imitation of the stars, but at room temperature from a solid-state reaction.

In 1989, after five years of work and investment of $100,000 of their own money, Professors Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced the release of nuclear-scale energy from an electrochemical cell using palladium as the cathode metal. In the cell, heavy hydrogen is forced into the palladium until a new class of nuclear reactions occurs, in which energy of great intensity is released without the deadly radiation or radioactive by-products produced by other nuclear energy processes.


60 Minutes report on cold fusion (2009):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNn_Z6wCIk


The French Academy printed a brief report by Pierre Curie and his collaborator Albert Laborde in 1903 to announce that the newly recognized metal radium was always a little warmer than its surroundings. The metal gave off heat continuously without suffering apparent change. In a later memoir, Marie Curie, Pierre’s widow, offered her appraisal. More striking still was the discovery of the discharge of heat from radium. Without any alteration of appearance this substance releases each hour a quantity of heat sufficient to melt its own weight of ice. This defied all contemporary scientific experience.

That evaluation of the nuclear fusion claim followed proper protocol (formal procedure) in that it was evaluated simply as a measurement. Observational science offers a cosmic supernova (exploding star) or the phenomena of electrical superconductivity (electrical conductivity with zero resistance). These interest science enormously, even if their cause or mechanism is unknown.

For example, the 1911 discovery of superconductivity presented a scientific question: How was it possible for a metal to conduct electricity with zero resistance? The claim to have discovered anomalous heat power presented the question: What was a possible origin of the heat power? The first question, about superconductivity, was not answered for forty-six years.

After over two decades of work, hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers from laboratories around the world confirm the Pons-Fleischmann discovery. Cold fusion has been replicated at hundreds of world-class laboratories, such as China Lake, Amoco, SRI, Texas A&M, Los Alamos, Mitsubishi Res. Center, BARC Bombay and Tsinghua U.

Over 2,000 researchers have published hundreds of papers describing these replications in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. The excess heat was replicated in over 180 labs, the tritium in over 100, and the helium, gamma rays, transmutations and other proof that this is a nuclear reaction has been seen in dozens of labs, in hundreds of experiments. The results are not marginal. Tritium, for example, has been measured at 10^7 times over background.

You will find a bibliography of nearly 4,000 papers in cold fusion, and 500 full-text papers, including papers from the institutions listed above, here: http://lenr-canr.org/

"Literature on the subject of cold fusion has grown beyond a point where casual reading can lead to useful scientific understanding. This Guide is designed to give a technically trained person an overall understanding of the claims and evidence, with an emphasis on brevity. I have chosen only a sample of useful papers, with frequent reference to reviews where more complete information can be found. Much of this information can be obtained in full text from LENR-CANR.org." -Edmund Storms, Los Alamos National Laboratories (retired)

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEastudentsg.pdf

It was just the tip of an iceberg of a whole class of nuclear reactions–and other new hydrogen reactions–which occur in metals that are heavily loaded with heavy or normal hydrogen by any of several means. These are often called Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), or Chemically-Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR). There is also a process, pioneered by BlackLight Power, Inc., that produces catalytically altered hydrogen atoms.

What these processes have in common is the release of intense, nuclear-scale energies without damaging radiation or radioactive by-products. Reactors are small scale, requiring simple apparatus and common materials with hydrogen as the fuel. Transmutations of the metal cathode materials are commonly produced. In some cases, where radioactive materials such as uranium and thorium are used in the cells, these are rapidly transmuted into harmless by-products without production of harmful radiation or explosions. In principle, radioactive waste from nuclear reactors can similarly be deactivated without the political and economic costs of burial.

Collectively, these emerging technologies point to a much brighter future for mankind. They do not require resources controlled by any small group of countries. They are concentrated, portable, and democratic. Low cost realization and distribution of devices and systems based on these technologies will require the resources of a market economy and the removal of internal opposition from vested interests in the U.S. government and industries, including arbitrary blocking of “cold fusion” patent applications by the U.S. Patent Office. Originators of these technologies may make fortunes, but in the end humankind will be the beneficiary.

Two future possibilities are presented: (1) a sustainable, plentiful, and portable source of energy for society, and (2) the transmutation of radioactive waste products into harmless elements (radioactivity remediation).

See, for example: Dr James Patterson (ABC News) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUQfYw_H ... r_embedded

Nothing about this subject makes sense until you realize that it is mired in rivalry, hostility, and the suppression of academic freedom. Papers cannot be published; experiments are not funded. Distinguished, tenured professors and Institute Fellows are supposed to be free to study any topic they choose, but when they have tried to publish positive cold fusion results, they have been ordered not to publish or give lectures, and they have been harassed and reassigned to menial jobs as stock clerks.

The American Physical Society (APS) told Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger he would not be allowed to publish papers or even letters on cold fusion in APS journals, even though normally a Nobel laureate is allowed to publish anything he wishes. Schwinger resigned in protest, saying:

"The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."

While there is much progress, the specific reactions that produce the heat energy still await discovery. Accused of being scientific heresy, this story parallels the famous story about Galileo whose academy fellows refused to look through his new telescope because the observations would contradict then current cosmic theory. Likewise, skeptics of cold fusion research refuse to go into the laboratory and measure the generation of excess heat in contradiction of current nuclear theory.

We should take a calculated risk, and fund research to investigate solid, replicated, promising cold fusion experiments, because the stakes are so high. Every day, worldwide, people spend $3.7 billion on fossil fuel, to generate 0.9 quads of energy. Cold fusion would generate that much energy from 15 tons of heavy water, which would cost approximately $3.5 million.

Imagine what $3.7 billion per day could do for society! Imagine the benefits that would flow if this money were spent on housing, education, food and infrastructure, instead of oil and coal. Every week, roughly 42,000 children die from waterborne infectious disease their parents could easily prevent if only they had enough fuel to boil drinking water, cook food properly, and stay warm in winter.

Cold fusion research is a risk worth taking, and a cause worth fighting for, no matter how high the odds against it may be.

Even the cold fusion researchers do not realize how vast the consequences of their work may turn out to be. Cold fusion will be far more than a clean “replacement” for present-day energy systems. Calling it a replacement is like saying that a Pentium computer connected to the Internet is a replacement for a slide rule and a typewriter. Cold fusion will be orders of magnitude cheaper, more abundant and less polluting. It will be qualitatively better in ways we can hardly imagine.

-

“Every revolutionary idea seems to evoke three stages of reaction. They may be summed up by the phrases: (1) It's completely impossible. (2) It's possible, but it's not worth doing. (3) I said it was a good idea all along.”
― Arthur C. Clarke

"Arthur C. Clarke: The Man Who Predicted Cold Fusion and Modern Alchemy", by Dr. Eugene Mallove
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazi ... clark.html

[Sparky]

Appears to be a well thought out summary. If only science was able to overcome greed and avarice..

[ZPinch]

Nice writeup man. Keep it up.