Cold fusion is back at the American Chemical Society
Chemistry meeting grants audience to low-energy nuclear work.
After an 18-year hiatus, the American Chemical Society (ACS) seems to be warming to cold fusion. Today that society is holding a symposium at their national meeting in Chicago, Illinois, on 'low-energy nuclear reactions', the official name for cold fusion.
Read the story here
Comments
Contrary to most of the existing “cold fusion” scientists, we believe that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed below. No “new physics” is involved, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not “cold fusion” and never was.
L. Larsen, Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University
"Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces"
Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006)
"Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269
"Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472
"Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059
Posted by: Lewis G. Larsen | March 30, 2007 02:11 PM
Larsen & Widom "believe...well-established results...are best explained by invoking the weak interaction" in an "extention of collective effects," and offer a theoretical model showing how those effects might extend while maintaining Standard Model status quo.
Belief is a proven poor foundation for science, and untested hypotheses no matter how promising are not grounds for declaring "thus," it is "not cold fusion and never was." That sounds like preconceived bias.
Ten years ago the brilliant experimentalist Ken Shoulders found evidence in LENRs of the formation of high-energy groups of electrons self-organizing into circulating toroids like smoke rings, named charge clusters, packing a micro-wallop that provides a focused mechanism of nuclear transformations. Supporting this and other real cold fusion work were top scientists like Ed Storms of Los Alamos and the late murdered Eugene Mallove of MIT, who spoke with first-hand knowledge of negatively-doctored cold fusion results at MIT:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf
Who in the current "mainstream" has really given their work a fair look?
Hooray for the ACS.
Posted by: Dante DeNavarre | March 30, 2007 11:01 PM
Larsen & Widom "believe...well-established results...are best explained by invoking the weak interaction" in an "extension of collective effects," and offer a theoretical model showing how those effects might extend while maintaining Standard Model status quo.
Belief is a proven poor foundation for science, and untested hypotheses no matter how promising are not grounds for declaring "thus," it is "not cold fusion and never was." That sounds like preconceived bias.
Ten years ago the brilliant experimentalist Ken Shoulders found evidence in LENRs of the formation of high-energy groups of electrons self-organizing into circulating toroids like smoke rings, named charge clusters, packing a micro-wallop that provides a focused mechanism of nuclear transformations. Supporting this and other real cold fusion work were top scientists like Ed Storms of Los Alamos and the late murdered Eugene Mallove of MIT, who spoke with first-hand knowledge of negatively-doctored cold fusion results at MIT:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf
Who in the current "mainstream" has really given their work a fair look?
Hooray for the ACS.
Posted by: Dante DeNavarre | March 30, 2007 11:18 PM
Martin Fleischmann's calorimetric equations have never been refuted scientifically. In fact, the unscientific use of ridicule and personal attacks was used in 1989 to drive cold fusion from the mainstream science playing field. Our ACS Chicago paper uses these same equations in a blank or control system to obtain an accuracy within plus or minus 0.1 mW of power.Therefore,how does one explain the large excess power or heat effects in palladium/heavy water systems? It is not recombination because this was measurable at 1.1 mW in the control system.
Posted by: Dr. Melvin H. Miles | April 1, 2007 05:49 AM
The subject has been ignored by the media a long time, now it is time to expose the controversy to the public eye. It is now obvious that the extensions of the electroweak theory account for the results Pon, Fleishman and many others have published. The reaction of electrons and protons to form neutrons is not outside the realm of possibility simply something thing that was never observed in the past.
Posted by: Neil Farbstein | April 2, 2007 07:14 PM
In 2004, I independently developed a theory that reverse beta processes can be enhanced in some transition metal hydride lattices. I developed this theory on the basis of the collective electric and magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons with the metal hydride lattice and the resulting disruption of gamma exchange between electrons and protons, preventing the formation of the hydrogenous state in the lattice but allowing the exchange of W (positive) particle via the weak interaction for reverse beta processes in such metal hydride lattices. Analogous, reverse beta processes occur in neutron stars under the tremendous stellar gravity, which disrupts the gamma exchange, allowing the neutron formation. I postulated that in some transition metal hydrides such reverse beta processes are extremely slow but external magnetic and electric fields can accelerate the reverse beta processes. In particular, I reasoned that strong magnetization of the transition metal hydride both intrinsically and externally can by antisymmetry accumulate, concentrate and organize collective motions of lattice electrons and protons in the metal hydride for the enhanced reverse beta processes. Furthermore, on the basis of demonstrated spatial asymmetry for weak processes by Lee and Yang (Nobel Prize 1957), I postulated that the magnetization of the transition metal hydride lattice would orient and organize the orbital motions of the electrons and protons for higher probability of their formation of neutrons by reverse beta processes. Therefore, the activation of a magnetized transition metal hydride via high temperatures and high pressures, laser irradiation or electric currents can result in reverse beta processes and the other nuclear reactions by the capture of the generated neutrons by the surrounding elements.
I was able to publish an article on this subject after two years of effort. This article was entitled: "Magnetocatalytic adiabatic spin torque orbital transformations for novel chemical and catalytic reaction dynamics: The Little Effect".
http://www.academicjournals.org/ijps/contents/2006cont/Dec.htm
I submitted a patent in April 2005 on this process.
On the basis of this theory, I accounted for such phenomena as possible planetary nuclear reactions in the interior of the earth and other planets, and novel observations of anomalous phenomena during electrolysis of transition metal hydrides. This theory is consistent with the spatial asymmetry of the beta process and the greater stability of neutrons in the nucleus.
Posted by: Reginald B. Little | April 3, 2007 11:40 PM
thanks
Posted by: ikinci el eşya | May 13, 2007 10:39 PM