~~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~

Looks to me like "cold fusion" may work, but its Energy Returned on Energy
Invested is very low and probably negative.

~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~




Cold fusion is alive and well.

Hello!

(Please DON'T flame me about cold fusion. A lot of people on this group,
have put cold fusion in the same category as perpetual motion machines.
It is not. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time or energy to respond to
flames, or to try and condense dozens, hundreds, or thousands of pages
of cold fusion information down into sound bites for you. Instead, I am
posting numerous links to information, articles, theories, problems,
etc., to current cold fusion research. Please read the informative
articles and research for yourself FIRST. Then, if you still have a
problem with current cold fusion research and theories, please respond
to those people directly, not to me. They are the ones who will have the
in depth information and knowledge to respond to technical criticisms
that you might have with current cold fusion research. I am posting this
for informational purposes for those who will benefit from it; NOT to
engage in fruitless arguments as to whether cold fusion even exists or
not. I have NO desire to do that.)

Contrary to other posts on this group, cold fusion is alive and
well.(Although now, most researchers call it either LENR,Low Energy
Nuclear Reactions, or less commonly, CANR, Chemically Assisted Nuclear
Reactions.)

There are now almost 3,000 papers published on cold fusion. (That's
right, 3,000, that's not a typo.)

It has been replicated in something like 100 or more labs around the
world, using a variety of related metals, platinum, palladium, nickel, etc.

The reaction is difficult to start, and is INCREDIBLY sensitive to the
purity of the metal used, the way in which it was refined and cast, and
a host of other factors. This has made replicating the experiments
difficult, but not impossible.

There are over a hundred current theories as to what the heck is going
on, with maybe a half dozen or so ahead of the rest of the pack, but no
one has come up with a single widely agreed upon theory yet.

Research has been slow, but promising. The early notoriety, and extreme
difficulty in replicating the experiments, led to an unwarranted
ridicule of the achievement. This killed most funding for the research,
but successes since then, have started to change that.

(The year after the initial breakthrough, scientists at Los Alamos
(where the atomic bomb was created), replicated Pons and Fleischmann's
work SUCCESSFULLY, using an exact duplicate of their lab equipment,
under a non-disclosure agreement agreeing not to disclose the exact
construction of the lab equipment. This eary success in duplicating
their work, was not widely publicized.)

A major breakthrough in respectibility in cold fusion research was last
year, when the Department of Defense did a 180 degree about face, and
started to fund it's own cold fusion research.

Here is a link to a great cold fusion site:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/

Here is a link to a short introductory article (They have humorously
titled it, "Cold Fusion for Dummies", but please don't let that put you
off. It is a good, short introductory article.)

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcoldfusione.pdf

The below link, goes to a much, much longer, current technical article
that goes deeply into the problems, successes, and fixes for errors in
experiments, written by one of the researchers from LANL, the Los Alamos
National Laboratory, that SUCCESSFULLY duplicated the results of Pons
and Fleischmann's cold fusion research, shortly after the original Pons
and Fleischmann experiments 17 years ago. Chapter 7 lists a half dozen
of the best current theories, listing their good points, and problems.

Here is the introductary paragraph of the above long article, the link
to it follows below (the article is way, way too long, to post here):

"My interest in cold fusion began shortly after Profs. Pons and
Fleischmann announced their claims in 1989, while I was but an ordinary
conventional research scientist working at LANL (Los Alamos National
Laboratory). Of the numerous attempts to duplicate the claims, I was
fortunate in producing tritium as well as anomalous energy. There is
nothing like seeing a phenomenon for yourself to make a person believe
that it is real, regardless of what less observant people might claim.
Also, seeing many fellow scientists acting foolish and self-serving
provided an additional but disappointing education. Since retiring from
LANL twelve years ago, I have continued to investigate the subject, to
write papers, including several scientific reviews, and to lobby for
acceptance of the phenomenon. The large collection of references, being
nearly 3000, acquired in this effort was made the LIBRARY
<http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html> on www.LENR-CANR.org. With
essential help provided by Dieter Britz and Jed Rothwell, this
collection of literature will be kept up to date as the field grows."

http://www.lenr-canr.org/Introduction.html

Here is a link, to a critic trying to rebut parts of the above technical
article. At the bottom of the page, are cold fusion advocates rebutting
the rebuttal.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/SGBody.htm

Here is a link to several more informative articles about cold fusion:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/ShanahanKacritiqueo.pdf

Here is a link, to about 500 cold fusion research papers, in Adobe
Acrobat .pdf format, for the more technically inclined among us.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/FilesByDate.htm

Here is a link to their complete cold fusion library:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html

Hope this helps.

Karl


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]