Get it Here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2011/ICCF16/ICCF-16-Schedule-15Jan2011.pdf
Feb 062011
sbkrivit
Feb 062011
Sankaranarayanan, T.K., Srinivasan, M., Bajpai, M. B., Gupta, D. S., “Evidence for Tritium Generation in Self-Heated Nickel Wires Subjected to Hydrogen Gas Absorption/Desorption Cycles,” in 5th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1995. Monte-Carlo, Monaco: IMRA Europe, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France.
Abstract
The loading characteristics of hydrogen gas in electrically self-heated nickel wires was investigated with a view to maximise hydrogen absorption and thereafter “trigger” it to generate anomalous excess heat as reported by Focardi et. al in early 1994. The nickel wires were found to absorb substantial quantity of hydrogen following several alternate cycles of absorption/desorption. But calorimetric studies conducted with the system so far indicate that we have not succeeded in triggering excess heat generation. However on dissolution and counting using standard liquid scintillation techniques, a number of hydrogen loaded nickel wires were found to contain tritium in the range of 3 Bq to 2333 Bq. This finding corroborates the detection of tritium in light water solutions electrolysed by nickel cathodes reported by the authors first at ICCF – 3 (Nagoya, 1992) and again at ICCF – 4 (Hawaii, 1993), confirming the occurrence of anomalous nuclear reactions in nickel-hydrogen systems.
Share this:
Feb 042011
Source: Times of India
Q&A:‘Our dream is a small fusion power generator in each house’
There is renewed interest across the world in cold fusion. The International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science in Chennai next week will be attended by 60 scientists working in this field from across the globe. M Srinivasan, chairman of the organising committee of the conference, is a retired BARC scientist and a pioneer in nuclear technology involved in the construction of India’s first fast reactor. He spoke to B. Sivakumar about current trends in cold fusion research and why it could be a source of limitless energy in the future:
What is the role of Indian scientists in this research?
Based on a small report in the Times of India on March 24, 1989 about cold fusion, 12 teams of scientists in BARC set up independent electrolytes and observed the phenomenon that was first made public by two US scientists. We were the biggest group responsible for the research at that time in the world. We found evidence of production of tritium and neutrons in the electrolysis. A separate book on the scientific findings was published by BARC. A US team visited BARC in December 1989, saw our findings and gave a positive report to the institute. Based on this report, funds were released for research in a US university.
What is the current status of research in cold fusion in India and abroad?
For all practical purposes, research in India has come to a standstill since the mid-1990s. I have been trying to keep scientists and the public informed about the breakthrough in nuclear energy. Unfortunately scientists still remain sceptics. Since 2008, some scientists in India have started to look at cold fusion with an open mind. But there’s still a long way to go for research to begin. At the international level research is underway in Russia, the US, Europe, South Korea, Japan and China. Around 300-400 scientists are involved in the research. On January 14, two scientists in Italy demonstrated production of 20 KW of energy using hydrogen and nickel in a lab.
What are the new findings on this issue in the past decade?
Transmutation reactions in electrolytic and gas loaded devices is one of the important observations made by the scientists involved in cold fusion research in the past decade. Use of nano-technology has also played an important role in the last three years.
What is the agenda of the forthcoming conference in Chennai?
This is the 16th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, held in rotation between Russia, US, Europe and Asia. For the first time it is being held in India. The main aim of the conference is to draw the attention of the Indian scientific community to cold fusion. It is also an opportunity for the scientists to listen to the original researchers. Around 60 scientists from nine countries are participating in the meet.
Why is there opposition to the cold fusion theory?
There is opposition because the findings do not tally with textbook nuclear physics. However, scientists will have to think about nuclear and chemical reactions in a holistic way.
What is the future of this research?
Our dream is to have a small fusion power generator or pack with a capacity to produce 20-100 KW of energy in each house. Mankind needs a new source of energy and this could be a major source to meet the ever-increasing demand for power. The findings of this research could change the face of science.
Share this:
Jan 312011
To the Editor,
In the last issue (issue 36) of New Energy Times, you give in article 24 (Rossi and Focardi LENR device: probably real, with credit to Piantelli) a completely wrong and biased interpretation of an article I published in the Journal of nuclear physics.
This article was entitled : “Nuclear signature to be expected from Rossi energy amplifier-published May 6th 2010”. I never said that neutron or proton capture explained the phenomena. I just demonstrated that, if this hypopthesis is taken for true, then the consequences are not verified experimentally (high intensity gamma emissions are missing).
Another explanation is then to be examined: I quoted Widom Larsen theory as a possibility. This is normal honnest and scientific approach, which does not mean that I support this theory. In a second article published in the Journal of nuclear physiscs: “is the Rossi energy amplifier, the first pico-chemical reactor-published July 18th 2010” I gave another possible explanation (pico-chemistry).
I ask you to correct your article and publish this letter in “New Energy times”.
Yours sincerely,
Jacques Dufour
[Ed: New Energy Times appreciates this clarification. Our text should have said that Dufour “discussed” neutron or proton capture as part of a possible explanation of the Rossi device rather than that Dufour “speculated … on a mechanism.” We apologize for the error.]
********************
To the Editor,
Warmest congratulation to your sobering Editorial!!!
You mention correctly that LENR began with Jim Paterson’s ingeniously fabricated beads which he sent to George Miley at UIllinois – with legal agreement – to use for his following most sophisticated and detailed measurements in the world class Frederic Seitz laboratory. There the wider range of heavy LENR element generation was discovered including the fact of the later recognized Maruhn Greiner local maximum. This is the most convincing and impressive proof of LENR.
Kind regards,
Heinz Hora
********************
To the Editor:
Your new issue states:
“Infinite Energy, although performing a valuable service by publishing esoteric and exploratory science, is not always reliable when reporting facts. Managing editor Christy Frazier, who took over after founding editor Gene Mallove was murdered, does not follow conventional journalistic standards. When I advised her in January 2010 of multiple inaccuracies in Nagel’s ICCF-15 report, she said she takes what people give her at face value and does not do her own fact-checking.”
It is an issue of semantics, as far as I am concerned. In fact, the inaccuracies you pointed out were ALL about whether a person attended the event or not; Dave Nagel apparently used language like “presented” when a person was not, in fact, in attendance. He did not mean it in that way, I suppose, but I’m sure that is how it would be read.
Christy Frazier
Share this:
Jan 312011
By Steven B. Krivit
[This article is Copyleft 2011 New Energy Times. Permission is granted to reproduce this article as long as the article, this notice and the publication information are included in their entirety and no changes are made to this article.]
Introduction
Science does not happen by itself; it is a human activity driven by personalities. Competing ideologies in the low-energy nuclear reaction research field in recent years have led to disturbing events. This report will provide insights into those events and the activities of one person in particular, Michael Melich, who trained as a theoretical physicist and who has recently taken a more active role in the field.
This report will show that the LENR field does not comprise individuals united behind a single philosophy or goal. The concept of a unified community that is asserted by many of the field’s political leaders is a myth.
The fundamental underlying issue is the ideology of D-D “cold fusion” versus LENR, which does not presume or assert the mechanism of or belief in fusion. This report summarizes the actions of a few people in the field who, for perhaps a variety of reasons, have taken extreme measures to promote their D-D “cold fusion” hypothesis, at the expense of a more rapid and widespread recognition of the reality of LENR. Biases and differing ideologies are normal and expected in science; so is integrity.
Dieter Britz, a longtime observer of the “cold fusion” controversy, wrote, “Real scientists can tolerate differences of opinions.”
The LENR field does indeed contain many real scientists, and the actions of the few people who believe in the D-D “cold fusion” ideology discussed here are not representative of the field.
