Disconnected DOE

For some time now, since www.science.gov and www.scienceaccelerator.gov first appeared, both of which are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), there is still “0” information at the DOE’s home page, www.energy.gov, with respect to either LENR or Cold Fusion. 

This is hard to understand in light of the fact both the aforementioned web sites have better than 1,000 selected pieces of information from NASA and many of the other National Labs and Universities.

WHY DOES THE DOE LAG BEHIND?

Something nags me about the state of denial that exists at their home page.

Can someone fill me in?

 

Your Dictionary: Cold Fusion LENR Energy

We depend on dictionaries to provide meaning in our lives. What does your dictionary have to say about cold fusion/LENR energy research and engineering? Let’s take a look and see what these online dictionaries have to say about the nuclear active environment of “cold fusion”. Editors of dictionaries have an obligation to get it right.

My favorite dictionary, until recently, was the “Websters’ New World Dictionary.

I Was Disappointed to See What They had to Say “Cold Fusion” LENR Science

Browse Your Favorite Dictionary

Click here Merriam Webster – Cold Fusion

The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. 2013 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

Click here Oxford Dictionary – Cold Fusion

Syllabification: (cold fu·sion)

Definition of cold fusion:  Nuclear fusion occurring at or close to room temperature. Claims for its discovery in 1989 are generally held to have been mistaken.

Click here Macmillan Dictionary Cold Fusion

Definition cold fusion: noun [uncountable] physics

A type of nuclear fusion that some scientists believe can happen at the normal temperature inside a building.

Click here American Heritage Cultural Dictionary – Cold Fusion

Cold fusion definition:

The fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium at room temperature. In 1989 two scientists announced that they had produced cold fusion in their laboratory, an achievement that — if true — would have meant a virtually unlimited cheap energy supply for humanity. When other scientists were unable to reproduce their results, the scientific community concluded that the original experiment had been flawed. The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

Click here Cambridge English Language Teaching – Cold Fusion

We do not have an entry for cold fusion. Have a look at how it is spelled. Did you type it correctly? We have these words with similar spellings or pronunciations:

  • collusion
  • confusion
  • contusion
  • cold fish
  • conclusion
  • cold front
  • collision
  • confusions
  • nuclear fusion
  • cold sore

Browse Popular On-line Dictionaries

Click here Word Web Online – Cold Fusion

Noun: cold fusion Nuclear fusion at or near room temperatures, claims to have discovered it are generally considered to have been mistaken.

Click here Your Dictionary .com – Cold Fusion

Cold fusion: A hypothetical process of producing nuclear fusion in a test tube at room temperature; more energy would be produced than would be expended.

Click here Urban Dictionary .com – Cold Fusion

Cold fusion:  Some ultra-cool event that everyone would like to see happen, and some people anticipate happening; which will never happen.

Example “Jimbo, you say you got a date with Tyra Banks, the super model? Yeah, right — I’ll believe that when my pad is powered via cold fusion and I start gassin’ up my ride with hydroms.” by The Jive Chemist

CONCLUSION

We are sad to find that the dictionaries in our lives just don’t get it right.

We can not depend upon our most trusted dictionaries to provide real and timely definitions of the cold fusion/LENR energy phenomenon.

Cold fusion or low-energy-nuclear-reaction (LENR) has now been demonstrated to initiate various nuclear reactions in solid materials without application of high energy. This creates a significant challenge for science to explain and for industry to use in a rational way. Therefore, understanding what has been discovered is very important.

What Is Cold Fusion and Why Should You Care? (pdf)

 

Stanley Pons’ Preface from J.P. Biberian’s La Fusion dans Tous ses États translated

Stanley Pons, co-discoverer of cold fusion, left the United States in 1991 amidst an unprecedented assault. Physicists wedded to the 100-year-old standard model of nuclear theory, and whose funding would be jeopardized by this seemingly simpler approach to energy production, ‘threw tantrums’ and attacked with vehemence.

Steven E. Koonin, who left Caltech Institute to work for BP Oil and later became the U.S. Under-Secretary of Energy 2009-2011, Robert Park, then-Director of Public Information for the American Physical Society and author of Voodoo Science, and John Huizenga, co-Chair of the Department of Energy panel charged with evaluating the scientific claims and author of Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century, were just a few of the men who used their authority to create a myth that ultimately denied funding to anyone interested in researching the Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE) of excess heat, and to blacklist all scientific papers on the topic from mainstream publication.

Sheila Pons documented the absurd melee in her editorial ‘Fusion frenzy’ stymies research published in the Deseret News March 28, 1990. For the Pons family, as well as the Fleischmanns, the emotional cost was great.

A new laboratory in the south of France funded by Minoru Toyoda, of the Toyota Corporation fame, was set up to continue research. The Institute of Minoru Research Advancement (IMRA) provided a peaceful, supportive setting for the embattled scientists to work.

Dr. Pons describes his early experience in France in the Preface to La Fusion dans Tous ses États: Fusion Froide, ITER, Alchimie, Transmutations Biologiques (Fusion in All Its Forms: Cold Fusion, ITER, Alchemy, Biological Transmutations) by Dr. Jean-Paul Biberian. Published last December 2012 in French, a new English version is expected later this year.

Dr. Biberian has worked on cold fusion cells for the past two-decades at the University of Marseille Luminy where he was a physics professor until retirement last summer. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science published by the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS).

From the French version, he wrote:
À l’annonce de la découverte de la fusion froide, en 1989, l’ensemble du monde scientifique entre en ébullition. Il serait donc possible de produire de l’énergie illimitée à moindres frais ? Dans de nombreux laboratoires, connus ou inconnus, réputés ou non, chacun tente de reproduire l’expérience dont tout le monde parle. J’ai fait partie de ces pionniers, de cette aventure prometteuse extraordinaire. Mais la fusion froide ne s’est pas faite en un jour.

Laissez-moi vous raconter la petite et la grande histoire, humaine et scientifique, alchimique et biologique, de la fusion froide. Une histoire qui me passionne et qui se poursuit aujourd’hui…

with a Google translation:
At the announcement of the discovery of cold fusion in 1989, the entire scientific world boils. Is it possible to produce unlimited energy at a lower cost? In many laboratories, known or unknown, ‘deemed’ or not, everyone tries to replicate the experience the world speaks of. I was one of the pioneers of this extraordinary, promising adventure. But cold fusion was not built in a day.

Let me tell you the small and the great history, human and scientific, biological and alchemical, of cold fusion. A story that fascinates me and that continues today …Jean-Paul Biberian La Fusion dans Tous ses États: Fusion Froide, ITER, Alchimie, Transmutations Biologiques (Fusion in All Its Forms: Cold Fusion, ITER, Alchemy, Biological Transmutations)

Dr. Biberian has been a colleague and friend to Stanley Pons since they first met in 1993 at the IMRA lab.

Infinity Energy Magazine has obtained special rights to publish the translation to English of Stanley Pons‘ Preface and has made it freely available to the public. [ download .pdf]

You can support Infinite Energy Magazine with your subscription.
Your subscription helps to continue the legacy of
Eugene Mallove and the New Energy Foundation.

Related

Edmund Storms at NPA-19: What is cold fusion and why should you care? video August 7, 2012

Too Close to the Sun: 1994 BBC documentary profiles early history of ‘cold fusion underground’ June 7, 2012

World Wide Lab September 18, 2011

Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot In Japan by Andrew J. Pollack NYTimes November 17, 1992

Video: 1989 Steven E. Koonin “we are suffering the incompetence and perhaps delusion of …. New Energy Times

Caveman Science Committee Concludes Fire Does Not Exist

Cave Man Loves Fire

Original article on Build the Enterprise here.

In helping to think about Cold Fusion … let’s go back in time to when claims of fire-starting were first heard about. Recall how the science committee reacted …

Back in the caveman and cavewoman days, someone had the idea to try to create fire artificially. They had seen the heat generated by forest fires started by lightning, and they thought that fire would be just dandy to create heat and light at night and to cook meat. They were tired of eating raw meat. Since people had noticed heat was generated by rubbing sticks together, some had the idea to rub them together faster and faster. Eventually here and there people claimed they were able to start fires by this method.

caveman-fireOne day the caveman and cavewoman science committee met to examine these claims of people creating fire. They brought in people to testify. Some said they are able to do it by rubbing certain kinds of sticks together, but others said all they achieved was a sore back from bending over all day. The science committee listened to the evidence and then took a vote. Because fires were not consistently created, the claims must be false. The committee proclaimed that artificially started fires did not exist. It was settled science.

A year later the science committee convened again. A small minority of people were still claiming that they had succeeded at artificially creating fires. After an investigation the committee concluded that only 21% of people attempting to start fires claimed to succeed. Since the fires were obviously not consistently reproducible, this big claim of artificial fire-starting was declared pathological science. Additionally, it was declared that these fire-starter types were to be ignored and shunned. After all, everyone knew people can’t start fires. Only lightning can do that. It was settled science.

On the third year the science committee met again. This time a few cavemen and cavewomen objected strongly to the science committee declarations of the previous year because they were tired of having to eat in the woods instead of the caves because everyone shunned them. So this small group of people said they could actually demonstrate this fire-starting. The science committee members reluctantly agreed to witness a demonstration. The cavemen and cavewomen who claimed they could start fires took the committee members to their cave that evening. All of them proceeded with rubbing sticks together upon which they did for two hours, and then finally one caveman was able to start a fire.

Everyone including the science committee members at first were startled and excited. The committee members scratched their heads and walked around this seeming fire. Finally, the most learned among them said: “It’s a trick! Five of the six people who tried to start the fire here tonight did not succeed. For scientific proof, these fires must be consistently reproducible. They all rubbed the sticks together in the same way, but only this fire appeared. This is obviously not a fire at all. It’s an illusion to fool us.”

The science committee left in a huff, but not before declaring loudly that the man who said he had started a fire should be shunned and he should eat in the woods alone forever. What nonsense they muttered. Pathological fire-starting, one said. The committee members had far more important matters to attend to than this artificial fire quackery. Besides, how important could fire-starting be anyhow?

***

Postscript #1: Ten years later the science committee changed their position slightly and said fire-starting could be studied. But since only 21% of people claimed that they could start fires, they still declared that artificial fires were not possible to create. Furthermore, they added this clarification: “And the claimed fires burn not nearly as hot as forest fires, and there is certainly no theory to explain this. These seeming fires violate our laws of fire science and thus these fires can’t possibly exist.”

Postscript #2: 300 millennia later the science committee of the day finally conceded that fires could be artificially created. To this they quickly put them to use and burned Bruno at the stake for claiming the Earth revolved around the sun and that the sun was just another star. After all, the Earth is at the center of the universe, and there is only one sun. It was settled science.

Related

The Believer zed short

Italian Senator lobbies Parliament for action

At meeting #53, Italian Senator Domenico Scilipoti, speaking to the Ministers of Education, University and Research and Economic Development, asked the Parliamentary Legislature in Italy to take initiatives to “promote the theoretical and experimental research” and “engineering and development of these new technologies”, referring to the nickel-hydrogen exothermic reaction that is the core of Italian low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research.

Published in Italian June 27, 2013 on the senato.it site, a Google translate follows here:

Act n. 3-00187

Posted June 27, 2013, at its meeting no. 53

Scilipoti – To the Ministers of Education, University and Research and Economic Development. –

Given that:

has recently been published online on the archive of scientific papers at Cornell University arXiv, a technical report entitled “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device” (Detection of abnormal generation of thermal energy in a reactor), whose authors are part of an international team of researchers consisting of: They Essén (theoretical physicist, former president of the Swedish Skeptic’s Society, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm), Evelyn Foschi (physics expert in radiation protection, former University of Bologna), Torbjörn Hartman ( senior engineer at the Svedberg Laboratory, Uppsala), Bo Höistad (particle physicist, professor at the University of Uppsala), Giuseppe Levi (nuclear physicist, University of Bologna and associate of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics), Roland Pettersson (former professor of Chemistry at the University of Uppsala), Lars Tegnér (professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Uppsala);

in the technical report were made public the results of two different experiments carried out on the thermal generator E-Cat (energy catalyzer) developed by Andrea Rossi in collaboration with Sergio Focardi, a physicist and professor emeritus of the University of Bologna, the reactor uses small amounts hydrogen stable isotopes of nickel and special catalysts. The experiments were funded by the Swedish company Elforsk that operates in the energy sector. On the website of this society the results obtained have been qualified in a positive and defined as “quite remarkable”;

article authors have measured in two different scientific experiments, one of the duration of 96 hours and the other of the duration of 116 hours, an anomalous heat production with an energy density considerably higher than the density obtainable by normal chemical reactions; in first experiment was produced thermal energy equal to 62 kilowatt hours with a power consumption of 33 kWh and a density of thermal energy equal to 61,000 kilowatt-hours per kilogram. In the second experiment the energy produced was equal to 160 kilowatt thermal absorption with a 35-kilowatt electric and a density of 680 kilowatt-hours per pound;

please note that the thermal energy produced by a pound of gasoline is equivalent to just 13 kilowatt hours. Both experiments are terminated with the deliberate shutdown of the reactor, not for the depletion of the active material used;

the orders of magnitude of the energies at play exclude both the possibility of experimental errors, both conventional interpretation of the new source of energy;

is also promising and realistic perspective of use in the near future such reactors for the production of electrical energy, thanks also to the thermodynamic performance obtainable from their high operating temperatures;

although there is still no generally accepted theory that explains the origin, the reality of the phenomena of abnormal heat generation is supported by thousands of scientific publications and many patents, some of which, such as the recently issued patent to Professor Francesco Piantelli University of Siena, offering technological solutions similar to those used in the E-Cat reactors;

Rossi has already obtained an Italian patent entitled “Process and apparatus for exothermic reactions, particularly nickel and hydrogen”;

many institutions and Italian and foreign companies, as Aeneas, INFN, NASA, MIT, Mitsubishi, Toyota, U.S. Navy, National Instruments, ST Microelectronics, and many universities are, or have been involved in this particular area of ​​scientific research, still considered by someone as controversial, mainly due to the lack of a conclusive theory;

Martin Fleischmann also the memorial project has recently replicated the experiments of Dr. Francesco Celani INFN,

asks to know:

if the Ministers address does not intend to take initiatives to promote the theoretical and experimental research that allow to clarify, finally, the nature and characteristics of the above phenomena;

if you do not intend to take initiatives to engineering and development of these new technologies with a view to a possible reduction of energy costs and promote economic growth and competitiveness of the country, which would become an exporter of electricity at low cost with huge benefits financial and environmental.

What Senator in the U.S. Senate has the … courage to stand up and say this very speech?

Related

European parliament ITRE committee meets over Fleischmann-Pons Effect

Political Support for Cold Fusion in an Election Year

Asleep at the Foot of the Bristlecone Pine

Respectfully
Once in Awhile We Should Pause and Listen
Learn About LENR Energy – Popular Cold Fusion
Listen to the Bistlecone Pine

As the SAGA of Cold Fusion Energy Unfolds
The Bristlecone Pine Bears Witness
As Do We
At Cold Fusion Now
Forever and Eternally Grateful for the Works of Sergio Focordi – et. al.
A Tribute to Sergio Focardi from the Poets Corner
Cold Fusion Now
In Remembrance to All
Care – Listen – Learn – Teach
LENR ENERGY and TRANSMUTATION of RADIOACTIVE ELEMENTS
Asleep at the Foot of the Bristlecone Pine

See Sergio Focardi in Remembrance

Top