Global warming is probably caused by fossil fuel, but even if it is not there are many good reasons to transition away from oil and coal.air pollution from coal kills 20,000 people a year in the United States alone according to the EPA. oil and coal cost far too much. Much of the money we spend on oil goes to support dictatorships in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The best potential solution to the energy crisis is cold fusion (the Fleischmann-Pons effect). researchers at Los Alamos, BARC and over 180 other major laboratories have replicated this effect. they have published 3,500 papers describing their replication, including more than 1,000 in the mainstream peer-reviewed journals. By 1990, they achieved temperatures and power density as high as a conventional fission reactor core.

Cold fusion cannot be commercialized at present because the reaction cannot be controlled reliably. However, as the U.S. Navy researcher commented at last month's ICCF-14 conference in Washington DC, "we are one breakthrough away from controlling the effect." Recent experiments at Osaka University and at the Italian National Nuclear Laboratories (ENEA) with nanoparticles have demonstrated greater control over the reaction as well as faster loading and turn on. The Italians have increased the input to output ratio by a factor of 40 in the last year, and they have increased absolute power to several watts. (Several watts may not not sound impressive but the device is roughly the size of a paperclip.)

You can read hundreds of scientific papers about cold fusion at LENR-CANR.org:

http://lenr-canr.org/

As of the present time, cold fusion is not demonstrable.

Perhaps that will change in the future; perhaps not. I hope scientists continue to work on the possibilities.

But hundreds of scientific papers will not light a bulb or turn an axle.

Show me.

northwoods wrote:

"As of the present time, cold fusion is not demonstrable."

That is incorrect. It has been demonstrated thousands of times, in hundreds of laboratories. It does not usually look impressive unless you understand calorimetry, tritium detection or mass spectroscopy. It is usually just instrument readings, although a few cells have produced 100 W or more, which is palpable. Several have exploded, which is not good. They explode because the reaction cannot be controlled, which is why it cannot be scaled up.

"But hundreds of scientific papers will not light a bulb or turn an axle."

No, but you have to have scientific papers before you can have the practical applications. Cold fusion is closer to commercial reality than things like plasma fusion, hydrogen fueled automobiles, or next-gen ethanol. It is also probably billions of dollars cheaper to develop than those alternatives, according to the people in the Navy who have developed similar technology. The fuel is virtually free and available in unlimited quantities. It has many other advantages.

"Show me."

Read the peer-reviewed scientific papers. Look at the autoradiographs from BARC. Have fun!

Ahh, Jed,

I wish, like you, that I could beleive in cold fusion. It would certainly end our energy problems once and for all. I got a bit excited when, recently, another couple of guys said they came up with another mechanism (sound waves) that might cause cold fusion-like effects. But, it seems like another dead end.

Unlike you, I am losing my faith in miracles.

But, here's a prediction. In 10 years, cold fusion will still be where it is today--generating zero watts of commercial power.

Here is another one. In 20 years, it will be generating zero watts.

And so forth.

lloyd667 wrote:

"I wish, like you, that I could beleive in cold fusion."

Well, if you believe in the laws of thermodynamics, and you believe that mass spectrometers, x-ray film and gamma detectors work, then you must believe in cold fusion. The signal to noise ratio is high and the effect has been observed thousands of times. Either you believe it, or you reject the experimental method and most of chemistry and physics going back to 1800 or so. The evidence is compelling.

"It would certainly end our energy problems once and for all. I got a bit excited when, recently, another couple of guys said they came up with another mechanism (sound waves) that might cause cold fusion-like effects. But, it seems like another dead end."

You are probably referring to the work of Rusi Taleyarkhan. That has nothing to do with cold fusion. It is a form of plasma fusion on a microscopic scale. It was first observed in the early 20th century, and it has been done by various researchers for decades. Taleyarkhan has made progress, and he has been replicated. Unfortunately, he has been attacked by academic rivals and U.S. Congressman Brad Miller who think he is doing cold fusion. He is accused of academic misconduct in various trumped up charges. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm

"Unlike you, I am losing my faith in miracles."

I belive in x-ray film and replicated, peer-reviewed experiments, not miracles. When a tritium detector repeatedly shows 10E8 tritium atoms appearing out of nowhere, I believe a nuclear reaction must be occuring. If you do not believe that then I suggest you do not have a scientific outlook.

"But, here's a prediction. In 10 years, cold fusion will still be where it is today--generating zero watts of commercial power.

Here is another one. In 20 years, it will be generating zero watts.

And so forth."

That is entirely possible. But if it turns out that way, it will be because of academic politics and people like Rep. Miller, who make their reputations by destroying people's reputations and lives, and trashing academic freedom. To some extent, it will also be the fault of people like you, who jump to conclusion and dismiss experimental results without carefully reading the literature, and who charactorize belief in replicated, peer-reviewed science as "faith in miracles." It is the opposite of faith.

I know this is a cheap shot, and I should resist it--but I can't.

So, here goes.

Are you sure your handle is Rothwell, and not Roswell?

Happy motoring.

northwoods wrote:

"I know this is a cheap shot, and I should resist it--but I can't.

So, here goes.

Are you sure your handle is Rothwell, and not Roswell?"

That is not a cheap shot; it is obscure, like the latest advertisement for Microsoft featuring Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld.

I gather you are equating cold fusion with flying saucer mythology. This is a common mistake. People also equate it to creationism. However, as Martin Fleischmann says, we are painfully conventional people. We are the very opposite of true-believer, anti-science crowd. Most cold fusion researchers are distinguished professors, or fellow of the Institute, fellow of the Royal Society, or what-have-you. They include three Nobel laureates; the former head of the Atomic Energy Commission Government of India and a commission from the French AEC; and three editors of major plasma fusion journals. Several of them got their start at Los Alamos during the war. Most are over 70. Most are, in fact, retired or dead. The reason so many distinguished people are involved is simple: there is enormous academic opposition to this reseach and a person without tenure and clout cannot be funded

The other reason is that older scientists from the "greatest generation" WWII era tend to be more open-minded, and more attentive to experimental evidence. They realize that facts overrule beliefs, and that textbooks were not written by the Gods. People like Bockris, Fleischmann and Schwinger know this because they themselves wrote the textbooks. Young scientists tend to be conservative and conformist. They make a mockery of the scientific method. They jump to conclusions about experiments they know nothing about. They assume that cold fusion researchers are flying saucer enthusiasts. Some of them substitute ridicule for a careful examination of peer-reviewed facts, by making fun of people's names, for example.

I have been hearing about "Lunar Helium 3" lately.

I am a rank amateur when it comes to these things and my only source of knowledge on the subject has pretty much been the Discovery Channel and Wikiperdia, but is this not the ONLY known material with which we can presently successfully do cold fusion? Or am I mixing it up with some other process?

If correct, then this may explain why Europe, Japan, China, India, and Russian are in a race to exploit the moon's helium 3 and that we should look at it, too.

"Cold Fusion" was sufficient to soak the Utah legislature for several million bucks a few years back. But then they all believe in Creationism as well, so what do you expect?

Philadelphia Steve wrote:

"Cold Fusion" was sufficient to soak the Utah legislature for several million bucks a few years back."

You refer to the National Cold Fusion Institute (NCFI), established by the state of Utah. Again, let me suggest that you read the peer-reviewed journal papers published the NCFI researchers, and their final report. They published rock-solid proof that cold fusion produces tritium. Their work should have convinced every scientist on earth that cold fusion is real. See, for example:

<link>

(A non-peer reviewed version, because I do not have permission to upload the journal paper). Quote:

"Tritium up to fifty times background has been observed upon electrolyzing 1N D2SO4 in four out of four cells when using Pd cathodes 'of a certain type'. No tritium was detected in four control cells, containing H2S04 in H2O, employing Pd cathodes cut from the same wire spool. Tritium amounts were from 7 x 10^10 to 2.1 × 10^11 atoms, corresponding to average generation rates from 5.1 × 10^4 to 2 × 10^5 atoms/sec/cm^2. In all cases, D/Pd and H/Pd loadings of 1 ± 0.05 were attained."

You imagine that the NCFI "soaked" the state when in fact it published superb results that proved cold fusion is a real nuclear effect. You make yourself look silly by jumping to conclusions and expressing opinions about research you know nothing about. Why is this so difficult for "skeptics" and self-appointed experts to grasp? Why don't you stop for a moment and learn something first, before jumping to a conclusion, or attacking people, or ridiculing them, or spouting off?

And when I say "read something" I mean an actual scientific paper -- something in a credible journal signed by a professional scientist that has passed peer review. I mean a paper with numbers in it that conforms to the laws of physics. I do not mean you should read anonymous nonsense at Wikipedia or something written by a dopy reporter who does not know fission from fusion, or character assassination penned by Rep. Brad Miller's staff.

"But then they all believe in Creationism as well, so what do you expect?

I spent a week at U. Utah recently. I visited the special collections on cold fusion in the library and discussed ongoing research there. The chemistry professors there do not believe in creationism. They are first-rate scientists.

tkondaks wrote:

"I have been hearing about "Lunar Helium 3" lately.

I am a rank amateur when it comes to these things and my only source of knowledge on the subject has pretty much been the Discovery Channel and Wikiperdia, but is this not the ONLY known material with which we can presently successfully do cold fusion? Or am I mixing it up with some other process?"

Helium-3 produces aneutronic fusion. It is relatively benign, compared to Tokamak plasma fusion. It has nothing to do with the Fleischmann-Pons effect (cold fusion) but it is interesting. it would probably require material from the moon which is a huge barrier to practical applications. I think if we are going to leave the earth, then space-based geosynchronous solar power is more practical. The prospects for this technology have improved greatly since it was first proposed in the 1970s.

The Fleischmann-Pons effect is also aneutronic. Actually, it does produce neutrons, but at a level ~11 orders of magnitude lower than plasma fusion.

There is evidence that cold fusion and plasma fusion are somehow related and plasma fusion can exist at much lower temperatures than was previously believed. This was discussed at the recent ICCF-14 conference in Washington DC. It seems likely to me that they are related because they both convert deuterium to helium and they produce the same amount of heat per helium atom.