Dr. Edmund Storms, cold fusion energy scientist and author of The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, spoke to Cold Fusion Now last summer.
This segment has Dr. Storms discussing the idea of the Nuclear Active Environment, an idea that consolidates elements of the cold fusion/LENR/LANR/CANR reaction, through both geometry and processes, in an attempt to describe the reaction theoretically.
“I do not think it is “amazing that the media has not paid more attention to” Rossi. His claims seem astounding. They resemble those of many previous energy scams. Reporters and scientists dismiss Rossi for this reason.
Dr. Michael McKubre, long-time researcher in cold fusion from the SRI lab in Menlo Park, California speaks to the public on the subject at Cafe Scientifique.
This is the first of eight separate Youtubes, all entitled “What happened to cold fusion?”
Dr. McKubre describes two main branches of the science, electro-chemical palladium-dueterium PD-D and nickel-hydrogen gas-loading Ni-H systems in plain easy language that any interested person can understand.
“I’m going to teach you enough electro-chemistry to go home and do these experiments yourselves.”
He says “Most of the work in the field has been in PD-D systems.” Francesco Piantelli began exploring Ni-H cells in the early nineties. It is this type of reaction on which inventor Andrea A Rossi based his Energy Catalyzer steam generator. Dr. McKubre will discuss that development at the end of the talk because as a news topic, its “hot and interesting.” He also says “Some recent results at SRI seem to support the idea that nickel and light hydrogen also can support nuclear level excess heat.”
In video 2 following, he says of the excess heat generated by a cold fusion energy cell, “This amount of heat is 100 or 1000 times the sum of all possible chemical energies combined.”
PD-D systems are sensitive to impurities. The cell itself is not glass.Fusilica, Teflon, platinum, palladium, quartz and alumina are the only materials that can be used in the cell.
To measure the heat generated accurately, Dr. McKubre says “we need a very well-defined temperature environment.”
The temperature difference between the water coming in and the water going out is measured by two sensors at the inlet of water moving past the heating unit and two-to-four sensors on the outlet water.
The three things we need to know is “what is the temperature difference, what is the mass, the flow rate, how many grams-per-second of water is going through that calorimeter, and what is the heat capacity of that water which is 4.186 Joules per gram of air-saturated water.”
Kelley T of Sierra Vista, AZ is the creator of the Whitehouse.gov petition asking President Obama to “investigate the usefulness of the Energy Catalyzer, a creation of the Italian inventor Andrea Rossi and he needs your help in gathering signatures to move the request forward to the President.
Can you take a moment and sign the petition to publicly put this issue in front of President Obama? You must register with Whitehouse.gov using an email address to sign the petition, and the effort needs over 24,000 signatures to make it through.
Having just sent a batch of letters to the Congressional House and Senate Sub-committees on Energy, this effort towards the Whitehouse completes the triptych.
This massive stack of snail mail is the whole 39 letters to Congressional energy policy makers requesting hearings to find the answers.
Hand-signed and flying with the wind to the attention of US Representatives such as Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland who since at least 2004 (when I started paying attention) spent more than his share of time educating his peers on Peak Oil, to no avail.
Also included on the Sub-committee on Energy and Environment is California Representative Dana Rohrabacher, who way back in 1989 spoke out in support of Drs. Fleischmann and Pons as they endured a torrent of vitriol from a physics arena that couldn’t reproduce the results.
In an editorial for the Los Angeles Times on June 18, 1989, Representative Dana Rohrabacher chastised physicists for their vehemence, beginning with a quote:
“Every great idea has three stages of reaction:
1) It won’t work.
2) Even if it works, it’s not useful.
3) I said it was a great idea all along.
—Arthur C. Clarke
It has been almost three months since two obscure chemists at the University of Utah held a press conference to announce that they had found something truly incredible in their test tube. Their reported discovery of cold fusion, if accurate, would usher not only science but all aspects of modern life into an era of growth and improvement that mankind has not experienced since the Industrial Revolution.
Not everybody was happy with this news.
The vehemence with which B. Stanley Pons and Martoin Fleischmann were denounced in the scientific community, the ferocity of attack on their work, as well as on their personal styles and motivations, surprised everyone. Well, that is, everyone who hasn’t taken a look at the history of science.“
Representative Rohrabacher goes on to review the experience of great scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, Antony van Leeuwenhoek and Joseph Lister. Continuing, he wrote:
“And in Europe, the powers of the day heaped scorn on the idea that a steam engine could have a practical use in transportation, which sent Robert Fulton to America with his plans for a steam-powered boat.
As recently as 1956, the Astronomer Royal of England scoffed at space travel as “utter bilge.” The very next year, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik.
So, some of us were not surprised at the recriminations, both petty and sweeping, that deluged the two poor chemists in Utah upon their claims of discovering cold fusion.
The high priests of physics were annoyed with the scientists’ method of public announcement; several universities touted their inability to reproduce in a matter of weeks results arrived at over a period of years, and physicists the world over continue to express pique at the presumption of two chemists entering their realm. “
Rep. Rohrabacher was not a believer, giving Drs. Fleischmann and Pons “around a 50% chance of being vindicated someday.”
He was a voice of tolerance, of integrity, of decency.
He wanted to give this discovery “a chance.”
“Our world needs such people who are willing to look where others refuse, to reject commonly held premises in the quest for new truths and to step before us with brave new ideas knowing that vilification will follow, even if history ultimately vindicates them. If cold fusion does fly, Pons and Fleischmann will be remembered as men who changed the course of human history; if cold fusion turns out to be a worktable mistake, well, let’s remember Pons and Fleischmann as two men who excited our imaginations for a while and who reminded us that we should not discourage pursuit of scientific knowledge, even if it flouts conventional wisdom–even if it is done without the benefit of a federal grant.“
Perhaps our message will prompt him to think back to those moments when he had the courage and fire to speak for what was right, and this time, feel the strong and worthy support behind him to do it again.
In politics, we don’t have to agree on everything.
We just need folks to do their jobs.
Join us in asking Congress to do theirs.
Why doesn’t the DOE consider LENR science and technology, and why isn’t the Patent Office prioritizing LENR patents?
Cold Fusion Now!
Turkey Today, Genius Tomorrow: Cold Fusion Attempt Has a Noble Lineage in Science by Representative Dana Rohrabacher for the Los Angeles Times June 17, 1989
Representative Dana Rohrabacher Congressional webpage.