sbkrivit

Dec 082011
 

In the last few years, despite the fact that, or perhaps because, my 2008 American Chemical Society presentation (slides, audio) is clear and explicit about the distinction between “cold fusion” and low-energy nuclear reactions, many “cold fusion” proponents have spent an inordinate amount of time muddying the waters. Even though many of them are technically capable of following the scientific distinctions, they still behave as though the loss of the term “cold fusion” represents a loss of their dream and of recognition of their substantial participation in a potentially new energy paradigm. For unknown reasons, many of the people who have been fighting the “War Against Cold Fusion” appear to be locked into a siege mentality and have been unable to shift their thinking as better facts and understanding of the field have emerged.

It therefore seems worthwhile to offer an analogy to help nonspecialists see the distinction between “cold fusion” and LENR.

The concept of the unicorn comes from European folklore. In general, it closely resembles a horse. It looks like a horse, walks like a horse and, ahem, talks like a horse. But the unicorn has a single horn that is said to have magical powers. And one more thing: It is a mythical animal.

The concept of “cold fusion” developed out of the research of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann and the community of researchers they inspired. But much like Columbus when he headed east from Spain and then thought he found a new way to India, Pons, Fleischmann and their followers were mistaken, but only partially.

The amount of heat generated from the Pons-Fleischmann discovery resembled a nuclear reaction. The tritium and helium produced were characteristic of a nuclear reaction. A research community developed as a result of the Pons-Fleischmann discovery. Central to this community is a utopian concept and hope for a world fueled by a new kind of clean nuclear reaction.

But there was a subtle but significant difference with the underlying physical mechanism: It was based primarily on weak interactions and neutron-capture processes, not fusion. Despite the growing body of experimental evidence that revealed this distinction, and despite all the attempts that Pons and Fleischmann’s followers made to try to make LENR look like fusion, no amount of varnish could change the fact: “Cold fusion” too, was a myth. But LENR, which does not presume or assert a fusion mechanism, is real.

Dec 072011
 

Akito Takahashi, a retired professor of nuclear engineering from Osaka University, and now affiliated with Technova Inc., is shifting his thinking about low-energy nuclear reactions.

For two decades, Takahashi, a LENR experimentalist and theorist, has been exclusively proposing strong force reactions in which deuterons theoretically overcome the Coulomb barrier at room temperature.

In the abstracts for the forthcoming Japan CF Research Society conference, Takahashi discusses the weak interaction p +e –> n + v and the neutron capture process 3p + n –> 3He + p.

Two decades ago, LENR theorists initially considered weak interactions and neutron capture process to explain the experimental observations in LENRs.

But it wasn’t until 2005 when Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen published their
Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of LENRs that the concept of weak interactions began to make sense.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/20111207TakahashiWeakInteractions.jpg

Dec 052011
 

Yan Kucherov, a low-energy nuclear reactions researcher who had worked with the Naval Research Laboratory as well as with ENECO, died early Sunday morning in Alexandria, Va, Dec. 4, 2011 after a battle with cancer. He was 61.

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/images/KucherovJan-byEW-w30.jpg
Yan Kucherov – Photo by Ed Wall

Graham K, Hubler, head of the materials and sensors branch at NRL remembered Kucherov with fondness.

“Yan was a true friend, outstanding human being and a talented colleague whose honor and integrity knew no bounds,” Hubler wrote. “He will be sorely missed at NRL and by colleagues around the world.”

[Updated Dec. 7: Yan R. Kucherov, Born in Kharkov, U.S.S.R. on Feb. 23, 1951, Departed on Dec. 4, 2011 and resided in Alexandria, VA.  Services: Thursday, Dec. 8, 2011
1:00 pm – 3:00 pm]

Dec 042011
 

[Ed: See follow-up story here: More Slides From Sept. 22 NASA LENR Innovation Forum. See Rossi Story Index here.]

On Sept. 22, NASA conducted a LENR Innovation Forum workshop at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio. Speakers included NASA scientists Joseph Zawodny, Gustave Fralick, Michael Nelson, Jim Dunn and Dennis Bushnell and retired University of Illinois professor George Miley.

New Energy Times obtained three of the slide presentations under a FOIA request.

Zawodny Slides
Nelson Slides
Bushnell Slides

At the meeting, Bushnell, the chief scientist at NASA Langley, said that LENR has a strong potential for a new source of energy. He was optimistic about nickel powder LENR solutions.

“The temperature you can get out of [LENR] is interesting,” Bushnell said. “We’ve had to be careful [in our research in] terms of the energetics. I don’t think there is a power [limitation] problem.

“I think the problem now is of raw courage to look into something that is new. We’ve been fortunate to have a center director at Langley that has the courage to support us to do this. We’ve been at it for three or four years.

“The U.S. efforts on this, for reasons I don’t understand, haven’t gone to the Widom-Larsen theory. They also haven’t gone to try to understand the 18 years of hydrogen-nickel [work] with really superb intellectual content. We need to get off of the Pons-Fleischmann electrochemistry and get into flow systems.”

At the meeting, Bushnell also spoke about Andrea Rossi, the inventor of the Energy Catalyzer.

“We intend to core down on the Rossi stuff and find out what’s real and what’s not,” Bushnell said. “But Rossi’s business is hard to explain other than with some kind of LENR. The Rossi stuff is probably wholly Edisonian and not totally understood, which is an understatement. But we can probably understand it at some point.”

Bushnell failed to mention that NASA had already made attempts to perform due diligence on the Rossi device. Some of the people involved in those attempts were in attendance at this workshop.

In the timeline shown in Nelson’s slides, Nelson omitted the Sept. 5 and 6, 2011 Rossi device tests performed in Bologna for engineers representing Quantum Energy Technologies. NASA representatives were present both days.

One of the eye-witnesses, a former NASA staff member, saw problems from the moment they arrived there.

“Rossi changed the game totally.” the witness said. “From the test plan, the device, everything. There was nothing there that we had agreed on. He had a 30 liter reservoir in there and he wouldn’t even let us see what was in the box or weigh the box.”

The Sept. 5 demonstration was inconclusive; Rossi’s device sprang a leak. The Sept. 6 demonstration was inconclusive; there was no outflow of steam or water.

On the second day, when the former NASA staff member asked Rossi if his device had an internal reservoir, Rossi became enraged.  Quantum’s engineers left but NASA engineers offered to come back in a few days to give Rossi time to fix the flow. Rossi declined their offer. He said he was “too busy.”

© 2025 newenergytimes.net