|
The leader in |
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | CONFERENCES | CONVERSATIONS | LINKS | SUPPORT | ABOUT |
|
|
NEW ENERGY TIMES TM March 10, 2005 -- Issue #9 Geologist Colin Campbell has a simple way of explaining peak oil: "Understanding depletion is simple. Think of an Irish pub. The glass starts full and ends up empty. There are only so many more drinks to closing time. Its the same with oil." 2. To the Editor Even though I cognitively know the evidence for lenr-canr is probative--that there is a reproducible *phenomenon*--the thing that still makes me gag is this: if nuclear reactions are so easy to cause at temperatures, pressures, and electrical currents like those we see and use every day, then how can there be any life at all? How can there be any stable objects at all? Why hasn't everything long since just blown up? Obviously it hasn't. All I have to do to plunge into deepest skepticism is a very simple physics experiment: Just look round. Matter is stable--very, very stable. This militates against lenr-canr with utmost force. How do we reconcile this? Tatiana Covington Tuscon, Arizona, USA Thanks to Tatiana for a most insightful question. We've asked some of the cold fusion researchers to provide an answer, and we present two of the responses below. Dear Tatiana, This curious question is even more interesting for me because it is the same I received in 1986 (from one prominent late Russian scientist) during defence of my Ph.D. thesis in Moscow. My thesis was on experimental detection of DD-reaction (neutron emission) during fracture of deuterated crystals (LiD and heavy ice). The answer is simple: Time. Let us assume that for some reason the cold fusion DD-reaction can "easily" occur with all deuterium in the universe. 1. The mass of universe on reasonable estimate is M ~ 10^54g. Suppose that hydrogen is 80 percent of its mass and deuterium is 10^-4 fraction of the hydrogen, the mass of deuterium roughly would be M(D) ~ 10^50 g. The mass of deuteron is m(d) ~ 3.4x10-24g, or the number of deuterons in our universe would be: N(d) = M(D)/m(d) = 3x10^73. 2. On the other hand, let us assume that the "cold fusion" in the universe is determined by D+D -> He-4 + 24 MeV reaction (with maximal energy yield). Comparison with PdDx He-4 yield (for instance, McKubre experiment) gives the yield of DD - reaction in Pd of Y(dd) ~ 10^-11/s per deuteron pair. 3. Again, for some unknown reason, we assume that the rate of DD-reaction in universe's deuterium is the same as in PdDx. Then the time during which all deuterium in universe will be "burned" in cold fusion reaction would be t = N(d)/Y(dd)~ 10^84 s. Notice that the time of universe existence (~ 14 billion years) is only ~ 4.4x10^17 s. So it means that during next 10^67 sec or 10^60 years we may have cold fusion. This number will not be significantly affected by more reasonable suggestion the CF is occurred only in solid part of universe, say only on the our Earth (M = 6x10^27 g). In that case, the deuterium could be burned for ~ 10^40 sec, the time that is much larger than time of universe. If we consider such a huge time of deuterium burning in cold fusion, then things during our life and during life of the Earth (~ 5 billion years) look pretty stable! Regards, Andrei Lipson University of Illinois, Urbana Russian Academy of Science Dear Tatiana, My reply is as follows: (1) LENR is a kind of resonance phenomenon; (2) It is very difficult to keep this resonance in a steady state. (3) We are looking for the mechanism which may keep this resonance state in a self-sustaining way, but it has not been successful yet. Possibly, a deuterium flux through Pd film is a method to maintain this resonance. (4) Fission was discovered in 1939, the first fission reactor was in operation in 1942 with the support from the whole nation in the war. LENR was announced in 1989, but we are still in the stage of confirmation of this phenomenon because the lack of financial support. Best regards, Xing Zhong Li Tsinghua University, Beijing, China 3. Notable Quotables Jed Rothwell on the debate about the reality of cold fusion: "If several hundred researchers could all make large mistakes using 100- and 200-year-old techniques, science would never work in the first place. That is like asserting that you can select 200 carpenters at random, have each of them build a wooden house, and when they finish, every single house might collapse because of mistakes the carpenters made. That would not happen in the lifetime of the universe. Of course, newly built houses do collapse from time to time. Individual carpenters do make drastic mistakes, and so do individual electrochemists. But they are never all mistaken." And Francesco Celani of Italy's National Institute for Nuclear Physics said, "In Italy we have a saying: 'Nobody is so blind as people that don't want to see.' Remember the Galileo Galiei-Cardinal Bellarmino 'discussions.'" 4. Department of Energy Dumps Cold Fusion (Again) "I think a review is a waste of time," said Princeton University physicist Will Happer regarding the 2004 cold fusion review. "But if you put together a credible committee, you can try to put the issue to bed for some time." Perhaps Happer, a member of the original 1989 cold fusion panel and former head of Department of Energy's Office of Energy Research (now the Office of Science) had greater insight than the cold fusion "believers." As a quick refresher, here are the conclusions of the 18 peer-reviewers selected by the Department of Energy's Office of Science last year: A) Half of the reviewers found the evidence for excess power compelling. B) Less than one-third of the reviewers believed that the evidence for low energy nuclear reactions was conclusive. The bottom line, as stated by the Department of Energy, was that "the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review." The interpretation is that "nothing's new, the claims of cold fusion are still not believable, nor are they worthy of a dedicated research program." Officially, the Department of Energy claims that it did not slam the door on cold fusion research. "We have always been receptive to research proposals," Jim Decker, principal deputy director of the Department of Energy 's Office of Science, said. "We make decisions on funding research proposals on the basis of peer review and relevance." A New Energy Times survey performed in late February indicates that U.S. cold fusion researchers fail to sense much sincerity from the Department of Energy. Only two researchers report plans to send cold fusion proposals to the Department of Energy. Alternatively, a few researchers indicate that they will submit proposals to the Department of Defense. Perhaps the clearest indicator of the Department of Energy's true attitude towards cold fusion is seen in the response to Dr. Melvin Miles, a professor of chemistry with the University of La Verne, in southern California. Miles is considered one of the pioneers of cold fusion research and was the first to identify the relationship between heat production and nuclear products. At the time, Miles was working at the U.S. Navy's China Lake research facility. A few years later, in another major achievement, he collaborated with Ashraf M. Imam, a metallurgist at the Naval Research Laboratory to develop and test a special palladium-boron alloy for use in cold fusion experiments. The alloy resulted in a series of cold fusion experiments that generated excess energy in eight of nine runs and a U.S. patent. The Patent and Trademark Office doesn't recognize the validity of cold fusion, so the application required careful wording. "We didn't use the words 'cold fusion'; we just talked about producing heat," Miles said of his 18th U.S. patent. Miles is a published author of 200 papers, 70 of them in the cold fusion field. A physical chemist, he has been recognized for his excellence in science by a 1966 NATO Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Award, and the following awards from his 24-year tenure with the China Lake Naval Weapons Center: Sigma Xi Award for the Best Scientific Paper in 1985 and 1988, William B. McLean Award in 1987, Fellow Award in 1989. On Jan. 24, 2005, Miles submitted to Decker a pre-proposal to study cold fusion. The cold fusion field is quite broad; it includes experiments that produce excess energy but no neutrons, and it includes other branches that produce neutrons but no excess energy. The area of study pertaining to excess energy is, by far, the most controversial, as well as relevant to civilization's future energy needs. James Horwitz of the Energy Department's Office of Science telephoned Miles on Feb. 17, 2005, with the following bad news: 1. Proposals for the optimization of cold fusion nuclear effects cannot be considered because the 18 Department of Energy panel members concluded that such nuclear effects do not exist. 2. Electrochemical cells have been studied to death, for example, by McKubre at SRI. Proposals of further electrochemical studies likely will not be funded by Department of Energy. 3. Any proposed new experiments need an acceptable theory to justify such further studies. 4. More peer-reviewed journal publications are needed before this field can be considered for funding. "Because of these points, Jim Horwitz concluded that he cannot justify sending my proposal out for review," Miles commented. "I am really quite shocked at what Jim Horwitz said." New Energy Times asked Horwitz for his side of the story. Horwitz made no corrections to Miles' report. Instead, he offered a one-page explanation of the procedures and criteria for proposals and explained how Miles' proposal fell outside of such criteria. "The proposed work as stated by Professor Miles is 'to optimize the cold fusion excess power effects by going to higher temperature,'" Horwitz wrote. "As this proposal is aimed at optimization and commercialization of the cold fusion process, I suggested that Professor Miles either restructure the proposed research towards the fundamental science or submit the white paper/formal proposal to one of the applied technology offices within the Department of Energy." In Miles' proposal, the "Summary of Goals" states the following: "1) Establish the experimental conditions for the production of both reproducible and large excess enthalpy effects. 2) Determine more accurately the correlation between the excess enthalpy and helium-4 as the nuclear product. 3) Investigate possible methods such as fluidized bed reactors and the use of higher temperatures for the commercialization of the excess energy production." The proposal comprises four pages of text and 10 pages of Miles' prior references and publications. Oddly, the quote allegedly by Horwitz does not appear in Miles' proposal. The word "optimize" does not even appear in Miles' proposal. The sentence does occur, however, in correspondence from Miles after the rejection by Horwitz and after the telephone call. The alleged quote of Miles by Horwitz and the justification by Horwitz to reject the proposal based on such quote are mistakes by Horwitz at best and a botched cover-up at worst. Horwitz's candid comments to Miles reveal a rare glimpse into the U.S. government's less-than-visionary behind-the-scenes attitude toward cold fusion. Here is why: Item 1 from the phone conversation between Horwitz and Miles is contradicted by the Department of Energy's own final report (http://newenergytimes.com/DOE/DOE-CF-Final-120104.pdf). Item 2 shows that the Energy Department is still clueless about the heat-generating effect of cold fusion. Item 3 runs counter to the fundamental principle of scientific discovery. Item 4 displays an ignorance of the numerous publications that have appeared in 55 peer-reviewed publications worldwide. (http://newenergytimes.com/reports/publishedpapers.htm) Miles has his suspicions about Horwitz: "I think he's afraid to fund this area because of the criticism and flak he would get. They are afraid to fund the area so they try to find reasons why not to do it." Horwitz's concluded his letter by stating, "I want to apologize to Professor Miles for any misunderstandings that were generated by my phone call." Perhaps Decker owes Miles an apology for a misunderstanding, too. In this month's Scientific American, he was quoted as saying, "We never said we would not fund proposals in cold fusion." It looks like they just did. Naturally, Miles is disappointed. "I've been wondering if it's time to retire and forget about cold fusion," he said. "Based on this response, there's no need to keep working on it. I don't see how I'm going to get any funding." Miles has had a bumpy ride, achieving both successes and failures with cold fusion. The Horwitz response perhaps tops them off. Starting in 1989, Miles, while at China Lake, was unable to see any excess heat effects for the first few months. The Department of Energy had been conducting its first cold fusion review at the time and took notice of his negative findings. "Apparently, the Department of Energy found my China Lake work to be sufficiently accurate in 1989 to include my results along with MIT and Caltech as evidence against cold fusion in their ERAB report," Miles remembers. Only a few weeks after the ERAB panel deadline, Miles saw his first evidence of excess heat. He wrote to each one of the panel members, but apparently nobody cared. None replied. In the mid-1990s, the Navy's Office of Naval Research, under the direction of Bob Nowak, funded a major cold fusion research program, and Miles was included on the team. During the tail end of that program, Miles and Imam developed and tested their palladium-boron alloy. "They closed that program just at the time when we were starting to get good results," Miles said. "They had already made the decision to phase it out, so this just came at the wrong time. Politically, once they decide not to fund something, they don't like things turning up that will contradict their decision." The going got rough for Miles after that. A change in administration at the Office of Naval Research resulted in Miles' receiving orders to report to the stock room. "Richard Carlin, who took over Bob Nowak's job told people outright that he wouldn't fund me because my reputation was ruined because of my work in cold fusion," Miles said. "Even though I was the only electrochemist there, he funded people all around me at China Lake. He very seldom gave me any money, and if he did, he would fund it and then take it back. They were trying to get rid of people because China Lake was running in the red. So they wrote up a memorandum where I was supposed to report to the stockroom clerk who had a high-school education and help her with an inventory of the chemicals." A way out of the stock room appeared for Miles in 1977 when the New Energy Development Organization, the equivalent of the Department of Energy in Japan, offered him a six-month job to perform cold fusion research at the New Hydrogen Energy laboratory in Sapporo. "It was one of the best labs I had worked in," Miles said. He brought one of his palladium-boron alloys to Japan, used it to produce the excess heat effect, and taught the Japanese researchers at the lab how to perform calorimetry. Will Miles consider foreign research jobs now? "I'm not going to propose outside of the country," he said. "I would like to work in this area, but I don't see much hope." Miles turned down a job offer from Tsinghua University in China, because he doesn't want to be that far from his family. The administration at the University of La Verne has been very supportive of his interests in performing cold fusion research. "I could have been released from all teaching duties to work on cold fusion if my proposal had been funded," he said. "I believe that this was my last opportunity to get back to cold fusion research. Because of Jim Horwitz's comments, I see no chance for any cold fusion funding and will now likely retire." Miles and his wife, Linda Miles, enjoy visiting their cabin in Oregon. "It's like a national forest up there with Douglas firs and ponderosas and a lot of wildlife. I'm planning on bringing up all my cold fusion papers and writing a book," he said. 5. The Department of Energy Lies Again Myth-busters Jed Rothwell and Ed Storms are at it again. They have analyzed the Horwitz fiasco and provided in-depth facts and references. The Department of Energy promised to evaluate cold fusion claims fairly, twice. Both times, when given a chance to keep the promise, the Department of Energy failed. The Web address is: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf 6. Ed Storms Continues the Dialogue with the U.S. Department of Energy Reviewers Ed Storms, of Lattice Energy, LLC, USA, has written a detailed response to the 18 reviewers who participated in the 2004 DOE Cold Fusion Review. The reviewers' comments (http://newenergytimes.com/DOE/2004-DOE-ReviewerComments.pdf) were helpful in pinpointing the current areas of weakness in cold fusion research. They were equally effective in displaying some of the continued misunderstandings. Storms has contributed an excellent addition to the debate on this most controversial science anomaly. The link to his paper is http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEaresponset.pdf . 7. Open letter to the U.S. Department of Energy and its Team of 18 Scientists Ludwik Kowalski, a physicist recently retired from Montclair State University, New Jersey, U.S., also had a few things to say to the Department of Energy-selected reviewers. Kudos to Kowalski for calling on his fellow scientists to attend to the foundation of the scientific method: experimental facts. His blog is at http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/196open.html . 8. Great, Not-So-Great, and Realistic Expectations from the Department of Energy Re-Review An insightful review and analysis by Scott R. Chubb: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/greatnotsogreat.html
On January 24, 2005, at around 4:00 p.m., an explosion rocked a cold fusion laboratory at Hokkaido University, Japan. The experimental design was the plasma electrolysis method, one of several methods used to perform cold fusion experiments. Physicist Tadahiko Mizuno, one of Japan's most experienced cold fusion scientists and a guest of his were in the laboratory at the time of the explosion. 10. Mizuno Paper Published Despite the recent interruptions to his research, Mizuno has recently succeeded in getting the paper, "Hydrogen Evolution by Plasma Electrolysis in Aqueous Solution" published in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics (Vol. 44, No. 1A, 2005, pp.396-401, http://jjap.ipap.jp/link?JJAP/44/396 ). His co-authors include Tadashi Akimoto, Kazuhisa Azumi, Tadayoshi Ohmori, Yoshiaki Aoki also from Hokkaido University, as well as Akito Takahashi from Osaka University. The text of the abstract follows: Hydrogen has recently attracted attention as a possible solution to environmental and energy problems. However, hydrogen should be considered an energy storage medium rather than a natural resource. Free hydrogen does not exist on earth. Many techniques for obtaining hydrogen have been proposed. It can be reformulated from conventional hydrocarbon fuels, or obtained directly from water by electrolysis or high-temperature pyrolysis with a heat source such as a nuclear reactor. However, the efficiencies of these methods are low. The direct heating of water to sufficiently high temperatures for sustaining pyrolysis is very difficult. Pyrolysis occurs when the temperature exceeds 4,000C. Thus, plasma electrolysis may be a better alternative. It is not only easier to achieve than direct heating, but it also appears to produce more hydrogen than ordinary electrolysis, as predicted by Faraday's laws, which is indirect evidence that it produces very high temperatures. We also observed large amounts of free oxygen generated at the cathode, which is further evidence of direct decomposition rather than electrolytic decomposition. To achieve the continuous generation of hydrogen with efficiencies exceeding Faraday efficiency, it is necessary to control the surface conditions of the electrode, plasma electrolysis temperature, current density and input voltage. The minimum input voltage required to induce the plasma state depends on the density and temperature of the solution. It was estimated as 120 V in this study. The lowest electrolyte temperature at which plasma forms is 75C. We have observed as much as 80 times more hydrogen generated by plasma electrolysis than by conventional electrolysis at 300 V. 11. ChangChun University, China, Takes Up Cold Fusion  Front row, left to right: Jian Tian, John Dash, Xing Zhong Li
12. Italian Physical Society Publishes Cold Fusion Nano-Particle Paper The Italian Physical Society published a paper by Yoshiaki Arata on the subject of nano-particles and cold fusion in December 2004. The paper is in English, and it begins on Page 6 of the PDF file at http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2004Arata-FormationOfSolidDeuterium.pdf. Here is an interesting viewpoint from Arata, excerpted from the conclusion of his paper: "I am amazed and impressed by this mechanism of 'nature' as much as I respect it. Simultaneously, only proper experiments enable us to comprehend its mechanism. Furthermore, we should not forget our current understanding of science is based on previous excellent experiments done by the earlier generations. As seen in recent discoveries of new materials one after the other, our knowledge is confined to comprehend only some parts of the mechanisms of nature. Hence one should not repeat such foolishness as denying 'heliocentricism' as was done in the past, which resulted from adhering too strongly to one's own knowledge or to what was common sense in those days. For myself, I always warn myself with a voice not to be too much possessed by my own current knowledge." 13. 6th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen / Deuterium Loaded Metals (Italy) Workshop organizer William Collis announced the sixth in the series of Italian cold fusion conferences to be held on 13-16 May, 2005, in Siena, Italy. The workshop is a program of the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (http://www.iscmns.org). Co-sponsors of the workshop are professor Francesco Piantelli of the University of Siena, Tiziano Ghidini, Chief Executive Officer of Ecodep srl, LumEnergia and the Monte dei Paschi di Siena Foundation. The conference takes places in Certosa di Pontignano, a 14th-century monastery converted exclusively for conferences by the University of Siena. Further details on the workshop can be found at http://www.iscmns.org/siena05/siena.htm . 14. American Physical Society March Meeting Monday-Friday, March 21-25, 2005; Los Angeles, Calif. Session U33: Cold Fusion Thursday, March 24, 2005 Room 511C, Los Angeles Convention Center Abstracts are located at http://newenergytimes.com/Conf/APS2005/2005.htm . Presentations will include work from the following (primary) authors: Szpak, Miley, Cravens, Apicella, Swartz, Hagelstein, T. Chubb, George, Miles, Stringham, Krivit, Storms, S. Chubb 15. Why Is Everybody Waiting For America When It Comes To Research? A conversation with Martin Fleischmann, discoverer of cold fusion, by Haiko Lietz New Energy Times is pleased to present the most current interview with Martin Fleischmann. In this sensitive and insightful conversation with journalist Haiko Lietz, Fleischmann reflects on society, science, and his personal struggles in life. "I think that we have to acknowledge that our society has become orientated towards consumption rather than production. And a society that becomes orientated towards consumption abandons scientific investigation. There are plenty of historical precedents for this phenomenon. And in the end, what has happened in the past is that societies which abandon the pursuit of science die. Our society will not necessarily die, but it will become unimportant." The English version is at http://newenergytimes.com/Conversations/FleischmannByLietz.htm. The German version is at http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/19/19257/1.html . 16. "Second Chance for Cold Fusion," by Haiko Lietz On Dec. 16, 2005, Haiko Lietz reported on German National Radio about the result of the 2004 Department of Energy cold fusion review, quoting David Nagel (The George Washington University) and James Decker (Department of Energy). Unfortunately, a biased editor changed the script so the online version (http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/forschak/331039/) contains errors. Only the original report, which is available on demand (http://ondemand-mp3.dradio.de/file/dradio/2004/12/16/dlf_1635.mp3), contains the author's words. 17. "Cold Fusion Acceptable For Scientists to Discuss, but Not Media," by Sam Smith Reprinted by permission of Progressive Review (http://prorev.com/), (Jan. 23, 2005) At the March meeting of the American Physical Society, 14 papers will be delivered in a session on cold fusion. This isn't the first time for such a session, and cold fusion also has been considered a respectable subject at the American Chemical Society. Cold fusion advocate Ed Wall reported, "They have been presenting at APS for a number of years, as well as the American Chemical Society. They generally do not generate much of a turnout, but because the scientists doing the CF research are in good standing in such organizations, the methods employed are standard stuff and the quality of the work they do appears to be good, they were able to argue (Scott Chubb, most persuasively) that they should be allowed to present their work." There is one place, however, where cold fusion is not permitted to be discussed or debated: the American press. Wall said, "Once CF started getting treated as a serious science, not just by a strong-willed minority of appropriately credentialed scientists but by scientific and engineering establishments around the world (Japan), it appeared as more than bizarre that it was still considered heresy in the United States." Cold fusion is far from the first new scientific idea to get the cold shoulder from scientists, the establishment and the media. Galileo's problems are well-known, but in a Nobel Laureate's talk last June titled "Pathological Disbelief," Brian D. Josephson, a physicist from the University of Cambridge Lecture, gave some other examples: METEORITES: The issue is whether meteorites have an extra-terrestrial origin. The arguments in favor were visual sightings, stones found at sites of apparent landings, which were often warm. Incorrect arguments against were that objects falling from space contradicted the laws of mechanics. The alternative explanations offered were the presence of an optical illusion or that a stone was struck by lightning. The cause of capitulation occurred when a massive meteorite fell near Paris. CONTINENTAL DRIFT: The arguments in favor (Wegener, from 1912) were the fit of the South American and African coastlines (Bacon 1620), matching fossils, rocks and coal found in the Antarctic. The argument against was simply: The claimed phenomenon is impossible. The cause of eventual capitulation occurred when other geological observations led to theory of plate tectonics. Josephson brings in the subject of cold fusion as an example of a current scientific idea that is getting its share of pathological skepticism. In his talk, he quoted Charles G. Beaudette as offering the following six characteristics of scientific skeptics: 1. They do not express their criticism in those venues where it will be subject to peer review. 2. They do not go into the laboratory and practice the experiment along with the practitioner. 3. They offer assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based when, in fact, they are mere guesses. 4. They employ satire, dismissal and slander. 5. When explanations are advanced, they advance reasons to reject them. These reasons often assert offhand that the explanation violates some conservation law. 6. They reject evidence outright if it does not answer every possible question at the outset. The problem with the media is even greater because they go to the established scientific profession rather than the ground-breakers for confirmation. Most of what editors know about science they learned in high school. I was attracted to the cold fusion issue because of political, rather than scientific, factors. After the initial Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins experiments had proven faulty, a number of anomalies developed. Some of the media seemed to go out of their way to beat a presumed dead horse, and a couple of anti-cold fusion books even appeared. The Department of Energy initially made it clear publicly that it wanted nothing to do with the matter (although it has backtracked a bit). The Patent Office refused to consider it. Meanwhile, in other countries, research continued, sometimes - as in Japan - with public monies, and some hardy American scientists kept plugging away, all gathering at international conferences notable for media absence. Even Toyota put money into the research, although the Japanese have since slashed their funding. In some eastern nations, cold fusion researchers were less of a target for hostility than their counterparts in the United States. As one investigator put it, "In the United States there is a degree of envy among cold fusion researchers for their Japanese colleagues. In Japan, the debate over cold fusion is polite and scientific. Researchers are not rashly judged or branded incompetent for suggesting cold fusion could be real. Their American counterparts would like to conduct research in a similar atmosphere, without accusations and emotionalism." The potential import of cold fusion, should it prove valid, along with the economic interests involved - including those involved in conventional energy or getting government money for other alternatives - raised the suspicion that some of the opposition might not be scientific. The hostility seemed to go beyond skepticism and veered toward political or public relations campaigning. The Progressive Review, in its role as an underground railroad for the new, the imaginative, and the abused, has remained hospitable to the cold fusionists without offering the slightest guarantee that they are right. They simply deserve to have been treated a lot better than they have been. 18. Murder Investigation of Eugene Mallove Two new press releases are posted at www.eugenemallove.org along with links to recent articles: http://www.eugenemallove.org/family_and_friends_release.html http://www.eugenemallove.org/police_release_0128.html The Norwich Bulletin also ran a recent article: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050203/NEWS01/502030311/1002 20. ArchiveFreedom.org Founded to Fight Scientific Censorship ArchiveFreedom ( http://www.archivefreedom.org/ ) was founded in 2004 by a group of physicists and mathematicians protesting the discriminatory practices of ArXiv.org, an online repository of research paper preprints administered by Cornell University. ArXiv.org is an electronic preprint archive. It was founded in 1991 at Los Alamos National Laboratories and was later moved over to Cornell University. Funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, it was formed as a way for scientists to disseminate new discoveries and theoretical developments rapidly to the worldwide scientific community. The intent was to create an open forum for papers written by credentialed physicists; that is, those who consistently had papers approved for publication in peer-refereed journals. Over time, the criteria for approval of submitted papers to the archive became more complicated and restrictive. One founding member of the Archive Freedom group, Paul LaViolette, had been constantly blocked from uploading one of his papers to the archive even after he had followed its posted rules for endorsement. The paper has now been accepted for journal publication, but the ArXiv.org administration had rejected endorsements for its posting three times, including an endorsement from astrophysicist and Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe. They gave no reason for the rejection, though LaViolette suspected he had been the victim of discrimination. He had previously published papers which challenged the orthodox theories cherished by the administrators of ArXiv.org. LaViolette sensed injustice and took action. Through his contacts with the National Science Foundation, he learned that others had also suffered similar censorship. "Through a Freedom of Information Act request, I got the names of a few others, such as Tony Smith, who had filed suit against ArXiv.org over this issue," he said. LaViolette made contact with Smith and another physicist, Carlos Castro, who had also been censored from ArXiv.org. He suggested that they work as a group to fight this. "Carlos has been very helpful with the ArchiveFreedom.org Web site and has also been instrumental in expanding the size of our group to over a dozen people who have been blacklisted by ArXiv.org," LaViolette said. "The group also includes others who are not blacklisted but who sympathize with our cause. Our ranks continue to grow as members of the physics community who have been discriminated against learn about us." "The ArXiv.org administrators appear to maintain a list of physicists whom they have blacklisted or ostracized so that any paper those individuals attempt to submit is systematically rejected regardless of its scientific content," LaViolette said. Usually, these blocked papers have already been accepted for publication in reputable peer-refereed science journals or are under review. Carlos Castro was inexplicably blocked from uploading his papers to the high-energy physics theory section of the archive since early 2000. Since 2003, he has been blocked from all archive sections, even though most of his papers have been published in refereed journals. Evidence that the archive had a vendetta against him comes from an e-mail which its director, Paul Ginsparg, sent to Castro's former institute supervisor. Ginsparg's e-mail libeled Castro's integrity and threatened to bar the university from access to the archive if they continued to support Castro's complaints about ArXiv.org's suppression of his work. One other founder of Archive Freedom, physics Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, also had difficulty with ArXiv.org after he attempted to assist retired Los Alamos physicist Edmund Storms upload a review paper on cold fusion. ArXiv.org had previously blocked Storms' attempts to post. Consequently, ArXiv.org retaliated by temporarily suspending Josephson's posting privileges. After Josephson brought the "oversight" to the attention of ArXiv.org administrators, his privileges were restored, but only partially. A paper he subsequently uploaded was punitively moved from its appropriate section by the moderators to the general physics section. Josephson's attempts to cross-post the paper to more appropriate sections barred. Josephson brought these overbearing practices to the attention of the physics community in a letter published in the February 24, 2005 issue of Nature. New Energy Times attempted to obtain Ginsparg's point of view. His office voice-mail offered the following greeting, "Hi, this is Paul Ginsparg. If you're calling to offer money or other resources, please leave a message. Otherwise, send an e-mail." Since we didn't have any spare cash at the moment, we resorted to sending the e-mail, but days later there was no reply. The founders of ArchiveFreedom.org hope to bring about a change in this suppression by alerting other physicists and the public to this blatant discrimination. ArchiveFreedom.org also relates the case histories of those scientists who have been censored and/or blacklisted. "This is a rebellion, and we feel we can win," LaViolette said on behalf of the group. 21. Cold Fusion in the News A Brief Review of the Science and Events at the 11th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF11) by Scott R. Chubb http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/reviewoficcf11.html 21st Century Science & Technology, "Cold Fusion: The Experimental Evidence," by Ed Storms (Winter 2004-2005) http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/current.html A guide for both general readers and specialists to the thousands of experiments that establish the overwhelming evidence for cold fusion and suggestions for crucial directions in future research. Il Sole 24 Ore, "From Japan, a breakthrough for the neutralization of nuclear ashes. A new research project might involve Italy," (Jan. 22, 2005) http://www.ilsole24ore.com/ [Editor's note: The following newspaper article stirred up a heated debate among researchers in Italy as well as those in Japan. Anger and tensions grew internationally as 70 scientists on an e-mail discussion listed witnessed a lively exchange between Camillo Franchini, the retired head of the Chemistry Department at an Italian military laboratory, and physicists Akito Takahashi of Osaka University and Yasuhiro Iwamura of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The discussion broke down when the conversation degraded from scientific debate to personal attacks. A frustrated member of the list remarked, "How dare you fill my Inbox with 0.5M of files! Remove me from the list! You people generate more heat than light." Fortunately, after intervention by several observers to the exchange, the personal attacks subsided, and the "flame war" was extinguished. An agreement to challenge the scientific facts was made among all parties, and a proper debate will resume at the forthcoming Siena Workshop. (http://www.iscmns.org/siena05/siena.htm) ] (English translation by Misa Celani) "Milan, Jan. 22, 2005 The dream of transforming or, more accurately, transmuting radioactive nuclear ashes into harmless residues might come true. This could be achieved by repeating, with radioactive substances, the successful experiment recently performed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (1.) The Japanese experiment showed that, in a properly assembled gas cell, natural cesium and strontium can be transmuted into different chemical elements, specifically into praseodymium (a rare earth element) and molybdenum, with a negligible energy input. This outcome is capable of opening novel prospects for the future scene of world energy availability. The radioactive isotopes of cesium and strontium are the most abundant and harmful components of the nuclear ashes: Their transmutation into nonradioactive isotopes might at last remove the main obstacle hindering the extensive and long-term exploitation of the nuclear energy.(2) In response to the successful Japanese research, a complex Italy-Japan research project is about to be presented to the Italian government. The aim of the project is to assess the industrial feasibility of the nuclear waste remediation. The government will be asked for a contribution of 16 millions euros along a five-year period. The overall project, amounting to 25 million Euros, 13 for the first two years and 11 for the following two years (3), should involve, from Japan, the team of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and that of Akito Takahashi, president of the International Society of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, and for Italy the Istituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare Frascati team directed by Francesco Celani, STMicroelectronics, Cornaredo Labs directed by Ubaldo Mastromatteo, Centro Sviluppo Materiali, Roma, and Orim S.p.A., Macerata. Other national groups like the Pirelli laboratories, even if not directly involved, might contribute by developing mathematical models of the peculiar phenomenon. Once the project is financed, an ad hoc laboratory could be built in Italy close to Rome in a very short time." [Editor's Notes: (1) Performed by Yasuhiro Iwamura of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. (2) The intention is to use a subset of the "cold fusion" process to remediate waste from conventional nuclear fission reactors. (3) Math error is original. (4) Reportedly, another article appeared in the same issue of Il Sole discussing the prospects of bringing a new Italian fission plant online. Concord Monitor, "For Slain Man's Family, No Arrests Mean No Closure," by Annmarie Timmins (Jan. 24, 2005) http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050124/REPOSITORY/501240347/1031 "Soon after Eugene Mallove of Pembroke was found murdered in Connecticut, outside his childhood home, the local police said they had talked to a couple of suspects and expected to have fingerprint and DNA evidence within a month. That was eight months ago, and the police said last week that they are no closer to solving the case. Some of that DNA evidence - the best hope of tying someone to the scene - still hasn't come back from Connecticut's state lab." The Inquirer, "Researchers Report Bubble Fusion Results Replicated: Cold fusion No Longer Confusion," by Nick Farrell (Jan. 21, 2005) http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20839 [Editor's Note: Ironically, this article created even more misunderstanding by collapsing the distinction between the acoustic cavitation / sonoluminescence experiments in the hot fusion field with the cold fusion field. The work performed at RPI, Purdue, ORNL researchers recently is hot, not cold, fusion. If you believe the evidence of those doing the hot fusion version of acoustic cavitation, they make 10 ^ - 6 watts in their beaker bubbles. If you believe those doing the cold fusion version of acoustic cavitation, they make 10 ^ + 2 watts in their beaker bubbles. The bubble race is on. BBC Horizon, "An Experiment to Save the World: Has This Man Created Nuclear Fusion? Horizon Investigates" (Feb. 17, 2005) http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/experiment_prog_summary.shtml The BBC Horizon group produced an entertaining show about bubble fusion. We can't really call it a documentary. You'll see why. Here is the opening statement by narrator Dilly Barlow: "We have assembled a team of experts to conduct a unique experiment to test out these claims. If the result is positive, then this man will be on the way to a Nobel Prize, and a dream of a shortcut to a world with unlimited cheap energy could finally be within reach. But if it fails, one of the great dreams of science will surely die." In case you are not inspired to read the entire transcript, we'll disclose the punch line right away. Their expert, physicist Seth Putterman from UCLA, failed in his made-for-TV science experiment to replicate the work of Rusi Taleyarkhan. Comments to the BBC Horizon discussion list say it all: "Horizon dumbed down. You've really ruined Horizon, it's like the worst combination of the discovery channel and American factumentaries. Appalling, just about unwatchable. I really had to turn off last weeks effort...." "I take it that the BBC's impartial approach to news and reporting doesn't extend as far as Horizon. With regards to the recent Sonofusion programme, for shame! Watchers are treated to a rather uninspiring visual medley of archive (frequently repeated) footage and a rather over-hyped narrative that gives a rather disrespectful look at those who've spent years trialing and proving experiments that are worthy of publication in some of the best respected journals in the scientific world." "[Years ago] Horizon's original view was to expand and inform the rest of us about scientific developments, expanding our knowledge (or 'horizons' if you will). In general the impression of the content and approach of the programme, to this recent development has been derisive, cynical and divisive. The director seems more interested in proving the science is wrong than providing a balanced presentation of fact (like documentaries do)." Another BBC documentary is rumored to be in the works about cold fusion - but not by the Horizon group. Cold fusion fans eagerly await the next suspenseful BBC "science" programme. Scientific American, "Back to Square One: Government Review Repeats Cold Fusion Conclusions," by Charles Q. Choi (March 2005) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=00059015-99C5-1213-987F83414B7F011C (Subscription required for full article) After 15 years, cold fusion got a second chance at legitimacy from the U.S. Department of Energy, often seen by cold fusion advocates as their greatest enemy. This rematch, many hoped, would vindicate the field or kill it once and for all. Instead, history repeated itself, with a verdict that evidence remained inconclusive. Conventional physics holds that nuclear fusion ignites at multimillion-degree temperatures. In March 1989 controversy erupted when electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, then at the University of Utah, claimed room-temperature experiments with palladium electrodes in heavy water generated heat far in excess of any chemical reaction. The suggestion was that the deuterons--hydrogen nuclei bearing an extra neutron each--making up the heavy water were fusing.... [Editor's note: We also recommend Charles' earlier article: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-04w.html] Scienza e Conoscenza, "Pi caldo o pi freddo? Davvero il clima sta cambiando? - Di Giovanni Zavalloni (March 2005) http://www.scienzaeconoscenza.it/rivista.php?idRivista=26 (Subscription only) 22. Speakers Available - Experts on the Subject of Cold Fusion Steven B. Krivit - General audiences (Co-author of The Rebirth of Cold Fusion) Charles G. Beaudette - Academic audiences (Author of Excess Heat and Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, 2nd Ed.) David J. Nagel - Government and military audiences (Participant in the 2004 Department of Energy Cold Fusion Review) 23. Recent Updates to the New Energy Times(tm) Web Site The Formation of "Solid Deuterium'' Solidified Inside Crystal Lattice and Intense Solid-State Nuclear Fusion ("Cold Fusion'',) by Y. Arata http://newenergytimes.com/Library/2004Arata-FormationOfSolidDeuterium.pdf The Original Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Cold Fusion Paper http://newenergytimes.com/library/1989fph/1989fph.htm Young Scientists http://newenergytimes.com/students/students.htm Cold Fusion Papers Published in Peer-Review Journals (March 2005) http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/PublishedPapers.htm Why Is Everybody Waiting for America When It Comes to Research?" A conversation with Martin Fleischmann, Co-discoverer of Cold Fusion http://newenergytimes.com/Conversations/FleischmannByLietz.htm American Physical Society March 2005 Meeting, Los Angeles, Calif. http://newenergytimes.com/Conf/APS2005/2005.htm 24. Support New Energy Times(tm) New Energy Times is a public-benefit company that provides news and educational resources in the field of leading-edge energy research and development. We deliver original reporting, research, and analyses to the public and general media through our Web site, electronic newsletter, and latest book, The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real Energy. We specialize in energy developments that are environmentally friendly and that support a sustainable future. We pledge to remain a news source you can trust and a resource you can depend on. If you find our work valuable, please become a regular sponsor or make a donation so we may continue being of service. We depend on our readers and thank you for your support. Regular donations can be made via Paypal: http://www.newenergytimes.com/support.htm If you are interested in providing a tax-deductible donation, please contact us for special arrangements. 25. Appreciation New Energy Times(tm) wishes to thank Cindy Goldstein for her exemplary editorial assistance. New Energy Times(tm) gratefully acknowledges the generosity of: The New Energy Foundation The New York Community Trust Jon Dean Productions Craig Erlick Graphic Design Shoot And Run Productions
|
|
|||||||
|
İNew Energy Times tm All Rights Reserved 2005 |
