If It Sounds Too Good To Be True . . . Maybe It Is?


Cold fusion experimentally confirmed

U.S. Navy researchers claimed to have experimentally confirmed cold fusion in a presentation at the American Chemical Society’s annual meeting.

“We have compelling evidence that fusion reactions are occurring” at room temperature, said Pamela Mosier-Boss, a scientist with the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (San Diego). The results are “the first scientific report of highly energetic neutrons from low-energy nuclear reactions,” she added.

Cold fusion was first reported in 1989 by researchers Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, then with the University of Utah, prompting a global effort to develop the technology. Normal fusion reactions, where hydrogen is fused into helium, occur at millions of degrees inside the Sun. If room temperature fusion reactions could be realized commercially, as Fleishchmann and Pons claimed to have achieved inside an electrolytic cell, it promised to produce abundant nuclear energy from deuterium–heavy hydrogen–extracted from seawater.

Other scientists were unable to duplicate the 1989 results, thereby discrediting the work.

The theoretical underpinnings of cold fusion have yet to be adequately explained. The hypothesis is that when electrolysis is performed on deuteron, molecules are fused into helium, releasing a high-energy neutron. While excess heat has been detected by researchers, no group had yet been able to detect the missing neutrons.

Now, the Naval researchers claim that the problem was instrumentation, which was not up to the task of detecting such small numbers of neutrons. To sense such small quantities, Mosier-Boss used a special plastic detector called CR-39. Using co-deposition with nickel and gold wire electrodes, which were inserted into a mixture of palladium chloride and deutrium, the detector was able to capture and track the high-energy neutrons.

The plastic detector captured a pattern of tiny clusters of adjacent pits, called triple tracks, which the researchers claim is evidence of the telltale neutrons.

Other presenters at the conference also presented evidence supporting cold fusion, including Antonella De Ninno, a scientist with New Technologies Energy and Environment (Rome), who reported both excess heat and helium gas.

“We now have very convincing experimental evidence,” De Ninno claimed.

See also:
Navy scientist announces possible cold fusion reactions
Cold fusion debate heats up again
After 20 years: New life for cold fusion?
New Hope for Controversial ‘Cold Fusion’ Power Source
Cold fusion makes a comeback
Neutron tracks revive hopes for cold fusion
What is Cold Fusion?
COLD FUSION TIMES
American Chemical Society
Pamela Mosier-Boss
2007 P. Mosier-Boss (SPAWAR) LENR Presentation at APS
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR)
Improvement of neutron detection efficiency with high sensitive CR-39 track detector
Antonella De Ninno
Antonella De Ninno 1
Italian Agency for New Technologies Energy and The Environment (ENEA)
Martin Fleischmann
Martin Fleischmann
Stanley Pons
Stanley Pons

Boy oh boy, can you just imagine the possibilities if this technology were to ever become commercially viable? We’re talking low cost, environmentally friendly, plentiful energy.

/the Saudis, Uncle Hugo, and all the rest of the evil people holding us over an oil barrel would suddenly become economically irrelevant

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. Theoretically cold fusion is impossible according to the principles of Quantum Mechanics, the reason why the physicists refuse to accept the occurrence of the phenomenon.
    The nuclear chemist Mitch Andre Garcia showed by very easy calculations that cold fusion occurrence is theoretically impossible, from the laws of Quantum Mechanics, in a Chemistry Blog where he is the administrator.

    However cold fusion is theoretically impossible because Quantum Mechanics does not consider the zitterbewegung (zbw) as a helical trajectory of the electron (the zitterbewegung appears in the Dirac equation of the electron, but the quantum physicists did not interpret the zbw as a helical trajectory).

    By interpreting the zitterbewegung from a new viewpoint, by considering it as a helical trajectory of the electron, cold fusion becomes theoreticall possible, as Guglinski has shown to Mitch Andre Garcia, along a discussion in the topic “THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COLD FUSION AND COLD FUSION”, which can be seen in the link:
    http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0

    Look at the Guglinski’s « Reply #8 on: September 24, 2007 ».

    So the chemists are now getting knowledge that cold fusion is theoretically possible thanks to the adoption of the new interpretation for the zitterbewegung, and they are undertaking the performance of cold fusion experiments, because it seems that they dont trust in the viewpoint of the physicists.

    Clearly, there is a dispute “CHEMISTS vs PHYSICISTS”, and it seems that the controversy on cold fusion will be finally resolved, but not by the physicists.

    The new duel chemists vs physicists has ideological origin. The physicits keep their loyalty to Quantum Mechanics, because they dont accept to change their interpretation on the zitterbewegung, since such a changing requires a very deep modification in the foundations of Modern Physics (the zbw cannot be considered as a helical trajetory in Quantum Field Theory, which is the successor of Quantum Mechanics).

    Unlike, the chemists keep their loyalty to the scientific method, according to which any experiment cannot be neglected only because it defies the principles of a theory, as happens now in this duel between Quantum Mechanics and cold fusion.

    Such new participation of chemists is healthy to science’s develolpment. Because as the physicists have some dogmas which they consider unsourmantable (as for instance their interpretation of the zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory), the development of cold fusion requires scientists free of dogmas of Physics, as the chemists.

    In few words, we have to consider the following situation:

    1- as cold fusion is impossible by considering the interpretation of zitterbewegung in Quantum Field Theory…

    2- … but as the experiments prove that cold fusion really occurs, as confirmed now by the experiments made in the US Navy…

    3- … then there is need to change the interpretation on the zitterbewegung (a new alternative that chemists probably will take in consideration starting from now)…

    4- … instead of neglecting the cold fusion experiments (as the physicists insist to do).

  2. […] it’s hot or cold, fusion suddenly seems to be all the rage these days. All I can say is bring it […]

  3. Based on the new nuclear model of Quantum Ring Theory, a new theory is proposed to explain the results obtained by Pamela Mosier-Boss cold fusion experiment.

    See the article in Peswiki:
    How zitterbewegung contributes for cold fusion in Pamela Mosier-Boss experiment:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_How_zitterbewegung_contributes_for_cold_fusion_in_Pamela_Mosier-Boss_experiment

  4. Wladimir Guglinski

    /thanks, your comments and links are a great read

  5. GUGLINSKI’S THEORY WILL BE TESTED IN US NAVY

    Subject: RE: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron’s background
    Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:29:47 -0700
    From: pam.boss@navy.mil
    To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
    CC: m_bernstein@acs.org; hestenes@asu.edu; canmarrai@gmail.com
    Dear Wladimir,
    Like many, we have very few funds and resources. But we will consider your suggestions and see what we can do as time and money permits.
    Regards,
    Pam

    RE: absence of gamma-rays in your experiment, and neutron’s background‏
    From: Wladimir Guglinski (wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 10:35:59 PM
    To: PAMELA MOSIER-BOSS (pam.boss@navy.mil)
    Bcc: JOHNATHAN CHAN (coldfusion111@gmail.com); jnaudin509@aol.com
    Hi, Pamela
    Be careful, and take cary.
    If all the deuteriuns of the Pd lattice alligned in the same direction get resonance and have fusion at the same time, perhaps it can occur a small explosion in your electrolytic cell.
    Also, I recomend you to put a loadstone externally in the cell (like in the Letts-Cravens experiment), in order to help to keep a lot of deuteriuns alligned toward the same direction (that of the external magnetic field applied)
    Good luck
    WLAD

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: