What happened to the Cold Fusion video? Are you getting pressured to take it down by your sponsors or your parent company? Please restore this wonderful report-many people deserve to see it and share in the news. Thank you
Why did CBS remove this video? It was one of their most viewed videos -- ranked second on their home page under most viewed videos at the time I'm typing this. Did someone put big pressure to keep this powerfully revealing news from getting out? Email CBS at the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page to urge them to put the clip back up. For more, go to wanttoknow.info/mass_media/media_censorship_cold_fusion. If everyone plays a part in pressuring CBS on this, we can make a difference. Take care.
Hey, Where's the video? I sure hope that your corporate owners didn't take down the video because it was too controversial for your oil and gas sponsors.
Dr. Garvin is mistaking the science lab for the production line. Consider how science works. Think about the invention of the battery. You put two strips of metal in water and get a volt of electricity. Eureka! Publish a paper, electricity from water, everybody?s excited. But then another lab puts two strips of metal in water and gets only half a volt. Another lab puts in two strips and gets nothing. And yet another lab gets a negative voltage. Does this mean that the battery is a foolish pursuit, that those who are doing the tests are either frauds or incompetents? No. It means that there?s something not yet understood; in this case, that the voltage depends on the conductors chosen - copper, silver, cadmium, zinc. And there has to be salt in the water, or something to make it conductive. The way you learn this is by digging deeper. But the Dr. Garvins of their time would have ridiculed the battery experiments in the same way that Dr. Garvin is ridiculing these current tests, they would have cut funding, they would have missed the revolution completely.
There are uncountable examples of this kind of initial inconsistency, in biology, physics, astronomy, electronics...you name it (?we put mold in a petri dish too, but the bacteria lived: Dr. Fleming is a fraud!?). When you see something interesting, investigate. Identify the different threads that cause those varying results, untangle them, characterize them, and move forward.
JJ2000426 wrote: "All your cold fusion bashers will have to answer one question: Why over the 20 years, more and more researchers, many of them skeptics to start with, joined the cold fusion research effort."
The onus is not on the bashers. CF, if real, would be huge, both theoretically and practically. The question its pushers need to answer is why more have not joined the effort. If 20 years of research on a simple experiment with such immense implications, hasn't shown enough progress to attract commensurate attention, then something must clearly be wrong. In fact, immediately after the announcement, the potential implications had virtually every physics lab on the planet setting up calorimetry experiments. Most failed to see the effect, and with those failures, came skepticism, and at least initially, fewer and fewer people worked on it.
Are there more and more people working on it over the 20 years? The program named some new people in the hunt, but it is not obvious that the new recruits are not offset by people leaving the field.
JJ2000426: "There is virtually no public funding support. They put their own science career at risk, and they are ridiculed by their peers. What is the motivation that they persisted in the research, if it were not for that there are indeed something very real that they see! "
This reasoning is seriously flawed, or it could be used to argue in favor of flying saucers, spoon-bending, the Loch Ness monster, and the existence of God. Motivation to do CF research requires only a belief that it is likely to be real (not that it is in fact real), and there is no doubt that they are all true believers. Believers expect to be vindicated, and with vindication would follow fame, glory, and wealth, not to mention the satisfaction of having contributed to a more habitable planet. What's not motivational about that?
JJ2000426: "To denounce the 20 years of cold fusion reseach efforts, you would have to reduce yourself to name calling and pronouncing all these researchers as mentally ill, or stand to gain from a giant conspiracy. "
They certainly don't stand to gain from a conspiracy, but mentally ill is a rather harsh description of what may simply be cognitive bias.
Again, your reasoning is flawed. If you accept CF because many people believe in it enough to work on it, then you should reject it because far more people (equally or more qualified) have decided not to work on it. And the believers have not been successful at convincing expert panels 20 years ago and a few years ago of the existence of nuclear processes.
What's more, while some phenomena are too subtle for lay people to accept for any reason other than virtually all experts agree (relativity, e.g.), the production of excess energy on a practical scale can be shown convincingly to anyone. Just make an isolated system with no energy input (other than D2O + Pd) and boil me a cup of tea. Maybe you need some electricity to start it up, but then you should be able to use the excess energy to generate the self-sustaining power needed. They haven't come anywhere near this.
Twenty years ago P&F and others reported excess heat in some electrolysis experiments (sometimes), and even less consistent evidence for nuclear reactions. Now, people are reporting excess heat in some electrolysis experiments (sometimes), and even less consistent evidence for nuclear reactions. Do you see the problem? Never in the history of physics has so little progress been made on so simple an experiment after so much effort.
JJ2000426: "That would be absurd."
What is absurd is the suggestion (of some, though not you) that all the physicists who tried the experiment and failed (i.e. most physicists working in 1989) are complicit in some kind of a conspiracy to suppress CF. What possible motive could they have? They can't be so naive to believe that if the effect were real, that it wouldn't be outed soon enough. And then their discrediting would be profoundly embarrassing at least, and their falsification of data would be career-ending. And even if they're guilty of neither, failure to enter such an exciting new field would represent an unforgivably missed opportunity. That would be absurd.
No, I'm sure the CF researchers really believe there is a significant likelihood of a nuclear effect happening, and the skeptics really believe it to be somewhere between unlikely and a snowball's chance. But I doubt there is a conspiracy on either side.
This is classic cold fusion sabotage - no video. Oops! Just a coincidence I'm sure.
Terry sounds right, but I can't seem to get many experienced proponents to step up here, and I think I know why. They are sick of being falsely debunked no matter how many papers they publish. They can't get a detractor to answer Terry's observation #1. They know, as I have observed here, that the hound dogs won't read the results or simply won't believe them. They have better things to do. The field is exploding and they are doing the work to be the household names in the near-future of physics. With the SPAWAR neutron production, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323110450.htm the DARPA proof, SRI, ENEA and so many others, the tide is turning. How ironic that the government, so often a force of suppression itself, has to be the ones to bring the truth because the establishment brainwashing has been so effective.
I resent that I, a lay person, must crack the books that you scientists should be reading to stand up for what looks like good science to hundreds of your very credible peers. But I'll try.
So for balok015 who said: What Garwin should have said, but didn't, was that "Cold Fusion" as shown in McKubre's animation is physically impossible. D+D fusion does *not* produce significant amounts of 4He -- even at room temperature -- but rather a 50/50 mixture of T and 3He, with only a tiny fraction of it going to 4He. And even if by some miracle, the eV-level interactions in the lattice could affect the lifetime of the 24 MeV 4He* excited state, there are no intermediate states through which it could decay in a way to give up its energy as heat rather than as a gamma ray.
I refer to: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/coldFusionCondensedMatter.php?printing=yes Who agrees as follows:
One major factor contributing to the initial scepticism against nuclear reactions was that the excess energy released was not due to the established thermonuclear fusion reactions, which result in a tritium plus a hydrogen, or a helium plus a neutron. These reactions and the energies of the products are as follows: 2D1 + 2D1? ?? 3T1 (1.01 MeV) + 1H1 (3.02MeV) 2D1 + 2D1? ?? 3He2 (0.81 MeV) + n (2.45MeV)
But gamma rays are produced in cold fusion: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KarabutABnuclearpro.pdf "Charged particles with energies up to 18 MeV and an average energy of 2-4 MeV were seen. Beams of gamma-rays with energies of about 200 keV and a characteristic X-ray radiation were registered. The summed energy of the registered products is three orders short of the values needed to explain the calorimetric results."
And from the first source above, apparently there's nothing to stop the tritium from reacting with more D to make 4He with a huge kick!
The deuterium-tritium fusion reaction produces helium and a neutron, together with 17.6 MeV (megaelectron volts) of energy. 2H1 + 3H1?? ????? 4He1 (3.5MeV) + n (14.1MeV)
They go on to say: "The excess heat generated tended to go up exponentially with the current. There was a steady rate that appeared to increase slowly with time, with bursts of very high rates superimposed on the slowly increasing steady state.? The bursts occurred at unpredictable times and were of unpredictable duration. Following such bursts, the excess heat production returned to a baseline, which could be higher than that prior to the initiation of the burst. The heat produced was so great that the electrolytic cells were frequently driven to boiling point, when the rate of heat production just became extremely large. It was not possible to make a quantitative estimate of the heat as the cells and instrumentation were unsuitable for making estimates under those conditions. Also, Fleishman and Pons adopted a policy of discontinuing the experiments (or at least reducing the current density) whenever the water started to boil. At such times, the palladium electrode also started to dissolve, which generated still more heat. They decided to avoid such conditions for fear of uncontrollable energy releases. These bursts of rapid increases of temperature were accompanied by marked increases in the rate of tritium production, suggesting that the nuclear reaction(s) occurring were different from those in the steady state. Indeed, tritium production has been observed by many other labs since, and is considered by some to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence for condensed matter nuclear science, as it suggests an entirely new mechanism whereby nuclear reactions could occur at low temperatures."
And the other side of Garwin's face did visit SRI in 1993 and reported to the Pentagon about McKubre's work: "...such an excess could not possibly be of chemical origin."
Please, you highly qualified stubborn crackpot debunkers, read the work! Your extinction is near. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/SelectedPapers.shtml http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html
It is absolutely unforgiveable for Richard Garwin to have visited the SRI International in 1993, trying to poke a hole in their measurements in the Cold Fusion research, and admitted that the excessive heat was real and could not be explained away using artifacts or chemical reactions, and now he has the audacity to come on public TV program to claim "maybe they measured the input energy wrong"!!! Where has he been in 1993?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Please restore this wonderful report-many people deserve to see it and share in the news.
Thank you
Where's the video? I sure hope that your corporate owners didn't take down the video because it was too controversial for your oil and gas sponsors.
There are uncountable examples of this kind of initial inconsistency, in biology, physics, astronomy, electronics...you name it (?we put mold in a petri dish too, but the bacteria lived: Dr. Fleming is a fraud!?). When you see something interesting, investigate. Identify the different threads that cause those varying results, untangle them, characterize them, and move forward.
The onus is not on the bashers. CF, if real, would be huge, both theoretically and practically. The question its pushers need to answer is why more have not joined the effort. If 20 years of research on a simple experiment with such immense implications, hasn't shown enough progress to attract commensurate attention, then something must clearly be wrong. In fact, immediately after the announcement, the potential implications had virtually every physics lab on the planet setting up calorimetry experiments. Most failed to see the effect, and with those failures, came skepticism, and at least initially, fewer and fewer people worked on it.
Are there more and more people working on it over the 20 years? The program named some new people in the hunt, but it is not obvious that the new recruits are not offset by people leaving the field.
JJ2000426: "There is virtually no public funding support. They put their own science career at risk, and they are ridiculed by their peers. What is the motivation that they persisted in the research, if it were not for that there are indeed something very real that they see! "
This reasoning is seriously flawed, or it could be used to argue in favor of flying saucers, spoon-bending, the Loch Ness monster, and the existence of God. Motivation to do CF research requires only a belief that it is likely to be real (not that it is in fact real), and there is no doubt that they are all true believers. Believers expect to be vindicated, and with vindication would follow fame, glory, and wealth, not to mention the satisfaction of having contributed to a more habitable planet. What's not motivational about that?
JJ2000426: "To denounce the 20 years of cold fusion reseach efforts, you would have to reduce yourself to name calling and pronouncing all these researchers as mentally ill, or stand to gain from a giant conspiracy. "
They certainly don't stand to gain from a conspiracy, but mentally ill is a rather harsh description of what may simply be cognitive bias.
Again, your reasoning is flawed. If you accept CF because many people believe in it enough to work on it, then you should reject it because far more people (equally or more qualified) have decided not to work on it. And the believers have not been successful at convincing expert panels 20 years ago and a few years ago of the existence of nuclear processes.
What's more, while some phenomena are too subtle for lay people to accept for any reason other than virtually all experts agree (relativity, e.g.), the production of excess energy on a practical scale can be shown convincingly to anyone. Just make an isolated system with no energy input (other than D2O + Pd) and boil me a cup of tea. Maybe you need some electricity to start it up, but then you should be able to use the excess energy to generate the self-sustaining power needed. They haven't come anywhere near this.
Twenty years ago P&F and others reported excess heat in some electrolysis experiments (sometimes), and even less consistent evidence for nuclear reactions. Now, people are reporting excess heat in some electrolysis experiments (sometimes), and even less consistent evidence for nuclear reactions. Do you see the problem? Never in the history of physics has so little progress been made on so simple an experiment after so much effort.
JJ2000426: "That would be absurd."
What is absurd is the suggestion (of some, though not you) that all the physicists who tried the experiment and failed (i.e. most physicists working in 1989) are complicit in some kind of a conspiracy to suppress CF. What possible motive could they have? They can't be so naive to believe that if the effect were real, that it wouldn't be outed soon enough. And then their discrediting would be profoundly embarrassing at least, and their falsification of data would be career-ending. And even if they're guilty of neither, failure to enter such an exciting new field would represent an unforgivably missed opportunity. That would be absurd.
No, I'm sure the CF researchers really believe there is a significant likelihood of a nuclear effect happening, and the skeptics really believe it to be somewhere between unlikely and a snowball's chance. But I doubt there is a conspiracy on either side.
Terry sounds right, but I can't seem to get many experienced proponents to step up here, and I think I know why. They are sick of being falsely debunked no matter how many papers they publish. They can't get a detractor to answer Terry's observation #1. They know, as I have observed here, that the hound dogs won't read the results or simply won't believe them. They have better things to do. The field is exploding and they are doing the work to be the household names in the near-future of physics. With the SPAWAR neutron production,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323110450.htm
the DARPA proof, SRI, ENEA and so many others, the tide is turning. How ironic that the government, so often a force of suppression itself, has to be the ones to bring the truth because the establishment brainwashing has been so effective.
I resent that I, a lay person, must crack the books that you scientists should be reading to stand up for what looks like good science to hundreds of your very credible peers. But I'll try.
So for balok015 who said:
What Garwin should have said, but didn't, was that "Cold Fusion" as shown in McKubre's animation is physically impossible. D+D fusion does *not* produce significant amounts of 4He -- even at room temperature -- but rather a 50/50 mixture of T and 3He, with only a tiny fraction of it going to 4He. And even if by some miracle, the eV-level interactions in the lattice could affect the lifetime of the 24 MeV 4He* excited state, there are no intermediate states through which it could decay in a way to give up its energy as heat rather than as a gamma ray.
I refer to:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/coldFusionCondensedMatter.php?printing=yes
Who agrees as follows:
One major factor contributing to the initial scepticism against nuclear reactions was that the excess energy released was not due to the established thermonuclear fusion reactions, which result in a tritium plus a hydrogen, or a helium plus a neutron. These reactions and the energies of the products are as follows:
2D1 + 2D1? ?? 3T1 (1.01 MeV) + 1H1 (3.02MeV)
2D1 + 2D1? ?? 3He2 (0.81 MeV) + n (2.45MeV)
But gamma rays are produced in cold fusion:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KarabutABnuclearpro.pdf
"Charged particles with energies up to 18 MeV and an average energy of 2-4 MeV were seen. Beams of gamma-rays with energies of about 200 keV and a characteristic X-ray radiation were registered. The
summed energy of the registered products is three orders short of the values needed to
explain the calorimetric results."
And from the first source above, apparently there's nothing to stop the tritium from reacting with more D to make 4He with a huge kick!
The deuterium-tritium fusion reaction produces helium and a neutron, together with 17.6 MeV (megaelectron volts) of energy.
2H1 + 3H1?? ????? 4He1 (3.5MeV) + n (14.1MeV)
They go on to say:
"The excess heat generated tended to go up exponentially with the current. There was a steady rate that appeared to increase slowly with time, with bursts of very high rates superimposed on the slowly increasing steady state.? The bursts occurred at unpredictable times and were of unpredictable duration. Following such bursts, the excess heat production returned to a baseline, which could be higher than that prior to the initiation of the burst.
The heat produced was so great that the electrolytic cells were frequently driven to boiling point, when the rate of heat production just became extremely large. It was not possible to make a quantitative estimate of the heat as the cells and instrumentation were unsuitable for making estimates under those conditions. Also, Fleishman and Pons adopted a policy of discontinuing the experiments (or at least reducing the current density) whenever the water started to boil. At such times, the palladium electrode also started to dissolve, which generated still more heat. They decided to avoid such conditions for fear of uncontrollable energy releases. These bursts of rapid increases of temperature were accompanied by marked increases in the rate of tritium production, suggesting that the nuclear reaction(s) occurring were different from those in the steady state.
Indeed, tritium production has been observed by many other labs since, and is considered by some to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence for condensed matter nuclear science, as it suggests an entirely new mechanism whereby nuclear reactions could occur at low temperatures."
And the other side of Garwin's face did visit SRI in 1993 and reported to the Pentagon about McKubre's work: "...such an excess could not possibly be of chemical origin."
Please, you highly qualified stubborn crackpot debunkers, read the work! Your extinction is near.
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/SelectedPapers.shtml
http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/GarwinLewisReport/garwin.shtml
or
http://*******.com/dnjfve
This totally destroyed Richard Garwin's credibility.
http://*******.com/3zbqrb