sbkrivit

June 12, 2012 – By Steven B. Krivit –

Stephen K. Ritter, a senior correspondent with Chemical & Engineering News, published an article on low-energy nuclear reactions on May 14. He summarized some of the non-scientific events that took place during 2011. I posted a brief comment about this here.

I also submitted a letter to the editor of Chemical & Engineering News the next day. It published today, and a copy appears below.

**********************************************

Having read the article “Reviving Cold Fusion,” I must respond by saying the field has experienced significant developments, particularly with regard to terminology (C&EN, May 14, page 42).

Edmund Storms wrote the following in his 2007 book “The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion”:

“Because many nuclear reactions besides fusion are observed, the phenomenon is now referred to as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR). The entire field is now called Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS). For the sake of consistency and habit, all of these reactions are called cold fusion in this book even though this is not technically correct. As you will discover later, simple D+D fusion might not make a significant contribution.”

Storms was right that D+D fusion was not a significant part of the picture. I explained why at the 2008 meeting of the American Chemical Society in Philadelphia. The first branch of D+D fusion always produces a high flux of neutrons. In LENR, neutrons, typically observed in bursts, have been detected only occasionally. The second branch of D+D fusion always produces tritium. In LENR, tritium has been seen on numerous occasions, but only intermittently. In D+D fusion, tritium is produced at a 1:1 ratio to the neutrons. In LENR, when tritium is found, it is measured at 1 million times more than the number of observed neutrons. In D+D fusion, helium-4 is found at 10 million times less than the number of neutrons. When helium-4 is found in LENR experiments, it is found at 10 million times more than the number of neutrons.

A close study of the nuclear transmutations found in LENR shows that they are inconsistent with fusion. These phenomena are, however, consistent with weak-interaction processes.

Continued use of the “cold fusion” term perpetuates incorrect technical terminology. It also perpetuates a stigma that is appropriately placed with the scientifically unsupported idea of cold fusion but is not appropriately placed with the real science of LENR.

By Steven B. Krivit
Senior Editor, New Energy Times
Editor-in-Chief, Wiley Nuclear Energy
Encyclopedia
San Rafael, Calif

May 24, 2012 – By Steven B. Krivit –

Yesterday, the NASA Langley Future Innovation Department uploaded a short video clip in which NASA said that it wants to test and confirm the Widom-Larsen ultra-low-momentum neutron theory of low-energy nuclear reactions.

New Energy Times made some inquiries, and the inside story suggests a very different picture.

First, let’s review some background information, most of which appears on the main New Energy Times Web site.

For the last 23 years, researchers around the world have attempted to perform LENR experiments to either demonstrate nuclear-scale excess heat or obtain other more-direct nuclear signatures. Most of the researchers who started this inquiry in 1989 thought the underlying process was some kind of “cold fusion.”

But a careful study of the experiments and a comprehensive theory published in 2006 by Allan Widom, a condensed matter physicist with Northeastern University, and Lewis Larsen, chief executive officer of Lattice Energy LLC, showed that LENRs have almost nothing to do with fusion.

Princeton University Press Release Excerpt:

Princeton University has agreed to reimburse $1 million to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) following a report by the DOE inspector general (IG) on a program at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) under which employees were assigned to work for extended periods of time at other U.S. laboratories engaged in fusion energy research. The University manages PPPL under a contract with the DOE.

May 21, 2012 – By Steven B. Krivit –

Summary Excerpts from Lewis Larsen’s Text:

– Outlines a hypothetical Widom-Larsen Theory LENR neutron-catalyzed transmutation network that produces stable gold and platinum end-products from tungsten ‘seed’ scrap metal

– Presents published third-party data which strongly suggests that W–> Au precious metals production by WLT LENR transmutations has been observed in laboratory experiments dating back to the 1920s and is also operating on earth in nature.

-Hydrothermal vent systems appear to be one example of a natural environment in which LENR W –> Au networks have likely operated in the distant past as well as in the present era

– Based on published data, it appears that natural W –> Au LENR transmutations may occur in Nature both abiotically and/or perhaps even biologically with certain species of bacteria

– Speculative analysis of the potential economics of future W –> Au ‘transmutation factories’ for production of precious metals such as gold and platinum suggests that, if present relative price relationship of tungsten vs. gold and platinum were to continue into the future, ‘conversion’ of tungsten into precious metals has the potential to become a highly profitable business activity. If such processes can be scaled-up volume-wise and production costs reduced further by riding the “experience curve,” LENRs might compete with conventional mining within 10 – 15 years.

P.S. If you like rock and roll, be sure to see the last slide.

When I was 12, I swore I would never want to write a book. How times have changed. I’ve written one and edited a few others.

At the time I rejected book writing, I was watching my dad go through a grueling, angst-filled process as he wrote and self-published a book in 1974. Last year, I decided to electronically re-publish his book, The Ruling Minority 1974.

Cover of The Ruling Minority, 2nd Ed.

The inspiration for the re-publication of the book came from two significant and highly visible political protest movements that emerged in 2011. The first occurred in several nations in the Arab world. Social consciousness combined with social media gave rise to a rapid cultural awakening. Passionate activists took to the streets against oppressive regimes which abused power and treated them brutally. Some of these rebellions were successful; some were not. All were bloody.

The second movement took place in the United States. It was equally intense, but its target was less obvious. It did not hold accountable any specific person or institution. It addressed the broad inequities placed on its citizens by a specific class of people. The U.S. movement identified this class as the “1%.” The 1 percent is the small sector of the population which controls vast resources and industrial and political power in the U.S. The movement awakened the American public to the fact that it had allowed the creation of a structure, and a class, that the U.S. economic system seems to be favoring at the great expense of the rest of its citizens.

Political protests are nothing new, but this was the first time that American society had recognized and identified the 1 percent and its counterpart, the 99 percent, as well as acknowledging how the two classes developed. More precisely, it was the first time since 1974, when this book was written, slightly ahead of its time.

I am by no means an expert in economics and politics, but I am happy to share this book with any readers interested in these topics.

Chemical & Engineering News Letter Published

NASA and Widom-Larsen Theory: Inside Story

Princeton Thermonuclear Fusion Lab Returns $1 Million to DoE

Fascinating Reading: Larsen’s Latest on LENRs and Gold

A New Old Book on Economics and Politics

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: