![]() |
|
|
December 1, 2008 at 16:18:52
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 12/1/08: by Ludwik Kowalski Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
Several years later I accepted the prevailing view that the field was pseudo-science. That was a mistake; more recent experiments seem to confirm the reality of new nuclear effects. I came to this conclusion after meeting some CF researchers and hearing their reports (at a mainstream 2002 nuclear physics conference). One experiment, described in an ICCF10 report (2003), fascinated me and I decided to replicate it, first working with Richard Oriani (in Minneapolis) and then at Montclair State University. Like Oriani, I observed tracks of nuclear particles in CR-39 detectors. Results, however, were not reproducible (4). That is typical in the CF field.
What the field needs is a protocol for at least one simple, reproducible-on-demand, experiment yielding undeniable evidence of a nuclear effect due to a chemical process. Such a protocol has recently been offered by SPAWAR scientists (5). I was one of several researchers who successfully replicated the SPAWAR experiment and observed similar results. This line of investigations is in progress (6). For the time being I do not agree with a tentative interpretation of SPAWAR results (7). Hopefully, the situation will become clear after ICCF15.
In my opinion, a field in which experiments conducted by competent scientists are not reproducible belongs to protoscience, not to science. My ICCF14 report (8) contains two flowcharts. Flowchart 1 shows what is needed to turn protoscience into science. But that is not sufficient to convince mainstream scientists that observed effects are real. What is needed is shown in Flowchart 2. The total cost of activities represented by this flowchart could be less than two or three million dollars. That is negligible in comparison with money already invested in hot fusion. It is probably too early to speculate about practical applications of CF. But it is not too early to organize a coordinated governmental effort for finding a clear yes-or-no answer about validity of at least one or two claims made by highly qualified researchers.
References
1) Click the "library"- at
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 8 comments |
|
scientific method
1) The commonly used name, "cold fusion," was unfortunate. But that is how the field is often called. I would be happy to elaborate on this, if asked. Most researchers refer to this field as CMNS (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science) or as LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). Use these acronyms to google. 2) The two flowcharts, illustrating evolution from protoscience to science is at the link shown below. In my opinion, CMNS is still protoscience. Will it become science at ICCF15 (next International Conference on Cold Fusion in Rome)? This is possible but not certain. 3) I hope the link will display the content of a jpg file saved at Montclair State University web server. I do not know how to include a picture into a comment. Does the OpEdNews software allow for this? < click here > by Ludwik Kowalski (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 133 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:59:22 PM
|
|
Cold fusion:20 years later
I do nto know why my list of references was trucated. Let me post it again, slightly modified. References by Ludwik Kowalski (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 133 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:52:53 PM
|
|
Reply: Try to show references again
List of references looked Ok in the preview. Why is it trucated in the comment. Where is the tutorial for users? Let me try again (inserting spaces in URLs) References by Ludwik Kowalski (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 133 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:57:13 PM
|
|
Reply: List of references
I wish I had a pedagogically written tutorial for new subscribers. Am I the only one who is frustrated ? I suspect that the above list of references will look better if the <P> tag inserted, to impose blank lines. Let me try this below. Also <B> and </B> to make "References" bold. Also < > around each URL. <P><B>References</B></P> <P> 1) Click the “library” at < h t t p ://www.lenr-canr.org > </P> by Ludwik Kowalski (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 133 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:07:56 PM
|
|
Steven Jones Calls It...
Muon-catalyzed Fusion. Check out www.blacklightpower.com, particularly Mills' explanation of electrons as 2-d "orbitspheres," as opposed to semi-discrete quanta. Interesting stuff, but the math could just be a bunch of smoke...I would appreciate a pair of eyes that could examine his equations and render them sane, or nuts. Mills explains CF as a hybrid reaction, somewhere between nuclear and chemical -- but he had to invent harmonic orbits BELOW the H 1 orbit. His HQ is just right over the border and down the road near Princeton. by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 151 diaries, 478 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:15:40 AM
|
|
Metallurgists know something physicists don't
(This was sent as a provate email to the author. The author suggested posting it as a comment here.) This is in regards to the spotty reproduceability in the field of CF research. I may be able to shine some light on that. (The author's response: "Thank you for the interesting message, Steve. I suggest you publish it as an OpEdNews comment, next to what I posted. This might generate an interesting discussion. Yes, irreproducibility seems to depend of the metal, some batches are good and others are not, even from the same supplier.") by SteveGinIL (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:02:29 AM
|
|
Reply: Pressure value did not come out right...
Correction: The value of the pressure was supposed to read 1 times ten to the 7th power. It showed as 1x107 somehow. by SteveGinIL (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM
|
|
Reply: Metal research and Cold Fusion
Hi Steve, this was very valuable input for me. I had practically forgotten about it, but back in the early 90s - I think 1992 - when I was still a Physics Student, I attended a lecture at our University (Muenster, Germany) on Cold Fusion. The presenter was a Physics Ph.D., and it seemed all very plausible. Now in that particular institution there was a metallurgy section within the Physics dept., and I do seem to recall that research results relating to hydrogen induced corrosion of pipelines were a topic. These effects are the main reason why despite perfect natural conditions a joint European-African hydrogene economy is so difficult to achieve. I really have to look up my old notes and see if I can still find that video. The pressure indeed would be sufficient. Whether that could ever lead to any sort of energy providing application is a different issue, of course. I would much appreciate if you could point out some relevant metallurgic literature. by Stefan Thiesen (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:49:59 AM
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |