Subject Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by Richard Hull on 2009-04-20 13:21
|
Well, It had to happen...... 60 minutes did a second pass on what they still want to purvey as cold fusion. The difference is it wasn't a hachet job, as in the past.
CANR-LENR, as it is now often called, or whatever the correct cover name you may wish to assign to it, is warming up again.
Even after a cursory overview, CBS news found out a lot of folks are seeing stuff and more qualified folks are working on this than mainstream science wants to admit to. The natural next question is, why, if the subject is so discredited are their good folks still pecking at the lobes of this?
60 minutes reported that a recent DARPA report following government sponsored experiments openly concluded in its research summary that there is definitely something to the phenomena of deuterium loaded, lattice based, excess heat production.
The initial opening interview was with Mike Mc Kubre of SRI international, whom I have met. For such a serious researcher, his first few thoughts were unusually bold and I felt a bit out there. However, he settled down as the piece went on. With video editing we don't know that they were even time ordered comments, having been selectively stripped from 3 hours of interviews. (Been there, had that done to me).
The key point was when CBS inquired, rightly, to the heads of the APS, (American Physical Society), as to a recommendation from them to a top notch, unbiased, person to help them look at this without a pre-disposition on the subject. A well known physicist involved with energy measurement was recommended to them. He agreed to go to Israel where the current best CANR-LENR research is being done and look, critcally, at their work. The physicist admitted that he thought the subject died years ago, but was amazed at the work being done, as he very skeptically looked on. He returned with a pile o' their data and spent " payed for time" running the calc's and checking the data. He admitted that their work looked impeccable, the calcs were good and that they appeared to have a genuine phenomena in hand!
The physicist admitted, on camera, that he was now a convert and was stunned that this got shoved into a bad place years ago.
The obligatory interview with Martin Fleischmann, the "grand old man" now moldering away in ill health and ruined carrer, was last. Fleishman noted that real fusion or not, his one great regret was using the hot button word "fusion" to describe his and Pons efforts.
He also noted, as many in the field now know, that the 1989 press interview was bad, as well, but forced upon him by the college and its lawyers seeking to back the patents and firmly establish their claims.
So where are we? Who knows?
As I have noted, those who do the work and, just once, see 5,10, 40 times the energy out as was put in are hooked and they must be prepared for there being no satisfying theory extant to explain the results chemically or at an acceptable nuclear level and a world of frustration borne through failure to consistently replcate, to consistently perform to similar levels when replicated, little or no radiation, excess heat far beyond the single ev chemistry level., plus measurable nuclear ash and transmutation products present in the loaded palladium remnant. Frustration....endless frustration...... Yet, they are hooked.
This more cheery segment now about possible new energy in the future followed an initial, very depressing report on the whys and wherefores surrounding the recent horrid 401 melt downs.
Two well done and interesting segments. I wonder if these are on line?
YES (update) view the piece at.......
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n
Love it or hate it, a must see piece.
What you get out of it will be up to you and your own perceptions, knowledge and hopes, fears and dreams.
Richard Hull |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by The Perfesser on 2009-04-20 17:41
|
Thanks for that summary of the "Cold Fusion" piece on 60 Minutes last night, Richard. I watched it to, curious to see how they would handle it. I agree the treatment was reasonably even-handed, and the "paid-for" scientist's surprise was a nice touch.
I think the whole problem with this line of inquiry is, as Fleischmann himself alluded in the final footage, that the word "fusion" has been associated with this phenomenon when there is no reason to really believe that what's happening IS any kind of "nuclear" reaction. All the experts agreed on one thing: that if something is happening, they don't know what it is, so calling it "fusion" is premature at best and a complete misnomer at worst.
Using "the F-word" to describe this phenomenon is a double dis-service. First, it raises the expectations for the phenomenon itself, as in "it's fusion, our energy problems are solved forever." And, if it's NOT fusion, then our understanding of what fusion might some day be (Richard's frequent caveats to the contrary not withstanding...<g>) is diminished by saying that it is.
It irritates the crap out of me when I start to tell somebody about the fusor and they say "oh, is that like 'cold fusion'?" I mean, THAT's what people are now familiar with. The word "fusion" has become synonomous with phony science, and I think that's a really tragedy.
I mean, God didn't think that fusion was phony when he started building his universe and needed to come up with a way to generate heat and light. "Let's see now.... take two hydrogen atoms...."
--PS |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by Chris Bradley on 2009-04-20 18:18
|
Yes, good to be able to see this, and understand the press' latest predilections on these subjects. Thanks for the link, Richard.
Richard Hull wrote:
> 60 minutes reported that a recent DARPA report following government sponsored experiments openly concluded in its research summary that there is definitely something to the phenomena of deuterium loaded, lattice based, excess heat production.
As the other chap pointed out, it is that *they* think there is definitely...
> The initial opening interview was with Mike Mc Kubre of SRI international, whom I have met. For such a serious researcher, his first few thoughts were unusually bold and I felt a bit out there. However, he settled down as the piece went on. With video editing we don't know that they were even time ordered comments, having been selectively stripped from 3 hours of interviews. (Been there, had that done to me).
It did give that impression! I thought he was just about to be set up to talk about interstellar propulsion!!!.... I suppose the 'end point' remains of, even, more interest to the general public who know nothing of the actual science.
> The key point was when CBS inquired, rightly, to the heads of the APS, (American Physical Society), as to a recommendation from them to a top notch, unbiased, person to help them look at this without a pre-disposition on the subject.
Both the 'alternative' scientists, this one included, started off by talking about potential issues measuring the power in. So I tried to spot the kit they were using, and it all looked very 'linear' type V and A stuff. My question would be - is the resistance of these cells expected to be 'ohmic'? Well, it might be but I wouldn't presume that is so. In which case, surely you'd need some much more fancy kit that can measure phase responses, reactive impedance, etc., and I don't think I saw any such kit. Maybe they did have it - anyone recognise what they are using? If these reaction cells do present reactive, variable loads then I'd expect to see variable results, somewhat depending on how the kit used samples the input values...... There are so many issues with measuring RF power of *know* characteristics that if there are high frequency ripples of *unknown* characteristics then the potential to mis-measure is enormous. Was this chap well versed in EMC/RF metrology?
I agree with Frank S.' suggestion; set up two cells together in one thermally isolated cell, one water one heavy water, then run 'em both exactly the same. Which way does the heat flow after a few hours? The only way to do it properly?...
> The physicist admitted, on camera, that he was now a convert and was stunned that this got shoved into a bad place years ago.
It is an odd admission to make by a senior scientist, and noteworthy for it. I have learned the hard way to always use the double-negative means in such scenarios to express such sentiments; 'I see no reason to doubt...', 'The results are not inconsistent with'... Why was he so sure to make stronger claims? |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by Richard Hull on 2009-04-21 09:14
|
For some years now, all serious investigators have used datalogging, computer linked, A toD converter systems of some speed and do the E x I from several points over a number of channels in the millisecond time frame. They actually showed a Pin - Pout real time reduction on a computer screen on the 60 min program. Again, this is common in all such CANR- LENR work now.
The multiple glowing green and red LED digital meters seen were solely for the sake of the dull witted, multi-second time frame human interfacing. The operators have to set and maintain levels throughout the often multi-day runs, as cell conditions change from time to time. A quick look by the humans at the meters can tell them quickly how things are going smeared over multisecond time frames. It they need, they have a continuous record down to the sub-millisecond range on every single parameter under consideration in their computer. Such setups are very, very in-expensive today.
A good 16 channel, 16 bit A-D box with millisec capture times per channel that hooks to a USB port with full software incorporating simple math functions over all channels is well under $100.00 today, ready to plug and pray. PICO offers microsecond grabs in 16 channels for under $280.00 with full complex math software. No real researcher would dare talk about power in - power out without such a computerized, watchdog, graphic printout in his data.
Most of your yak-head, over unity freaks on the web are still using digital meters, but this is mostly in pulsed electrodynamic situations with huge inductances, screwed up and varying power factors where even a freshman in junior college would laugh at the effort. There is suprisingly little rank amateur CANR work going on even if the web videos on you-tube seem to indicate otherwise.
The frustrating aspect is, as always, replication. For all these failures, only about 15% of the original mainline workers have left the field. Most could not take the frustration or had to get serious about making real money in the here and now. The constant need for the winning of one's daily bread has a way of intruding on dreams and desires. This particular siren's song is particularly inticing as a number of the better researches have retired from career early to persue the effort or become self funded. Others who remain in their scientific jobs have outfitted their homes to carry-on.
Fleischmann said it very eloquently back in 1898 as the tempest swirled about him on an old NOVA program from 1990. (This was NOVAs crushing synposis heralding the official "failure" of cold fusion.) Fleischmann noted in a rare burst of anger......" Stanley and I have been working on this for over four years, others who think they can go and have a quick dabble at it and announce negative results are welcome to do so...."
There was no saving that first effort. Too much hype, too much recrimination, not enough visible science, and the wrong choice of words. The critics certainly won the battle but the war has gone guerilla with small dedicated and devoted groups slowly eroding the weaker strong points. The APS originally condemed the CF work, but slowly, by the late 90's, was allowing poster presentations at their conferences. Now, both the APS and ACS allow full papers to be formally presented.
It appears that the whore has come to church following a good cleaning and putting on a respectable outfit. She is learning to fit in. But her seduction continues at a respected or acceptable level among the congregation.
Things that look scientifically pretty are natural wonderments. We are born to chase them.
Hot fusion, cold fusion, CANR-LENR, what have you..... They are all whores @#$%!* ...We spend our fortunes and lives chasing them. The rewards of catching them seem to be too great to resist.
Richard Hull |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by Wilfried Heil on 2009-04-21 09:34
|
Only 12 1/2 min. for "Cold Fusion" revisted. The rest must have been about other breakthroughs and some advertising. Fame is fleeting, even on 60 Minutes. What I would take home is the recommendation to review the original work and draw your own conclusions.
>For some years now, all serious investigators have used datalogging computer linked A toD converter systems of some speed and do the E x I from several points over a number of channels in the millisecond time frame. They actually showed a Pin - Pout real time reduction on a computer screen on the 60 min program. Again, this is common in all such CANR- LENR work now.
That'll give you some confidence about the electrical power in vs. the heat generated. I wouldn't expect these to be the same. We also have the heat generation of hydrogen dissolving in metal. If this ever gets a chance to contact oxygen, we'll get a lot of heat from the chemical combustion as well.
My impression is that these experiments are just ill performed and misinterpreted. |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by Richard Hull on 2009-04-21 12:03
|
"My impression is that these experiments are just ill performed and misinterpreted.".......
As was the impression of the APS recommended Physicist who was the expert in energy measurement, who became a convert once he saw the Isreali work and crunched their numbers. Masters at energy measurement can find no fault.
Richard Hull |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by Chris Bradley on 2009-04-21 10:31
|
Richard Hull wrote:
> Hot fusion, cold fusion, CANR-LENR, what have you..... They are all whores
I can't say I feel seduced in that way, but I can say that I find it a real bitch to get experimental kit here in UK!
OK, so ms digitised sampling rates.... But I still must ask, is this quick enough? Stanley Meyer [has he ever been discussed here on this forum?] reckoned on 20kHz pulse electrolysis or so (I seem to recall) to pull H2O apart resonantly. I've tried that myself to test his idea, but found nothing at 20kHz though the experiment was very uncontrolled, dunking a couple of wires into water. But running around 2MHz square wave I found significantly more gas liberated than at lower frequencies. So are yet higher frequencies than ms sampling required? |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by Richard Hull on 2009-04-21 12:20
|
You can bet your booties that the dataloggers these guys are using are fast and not low dollar items. I was just noting for the sake of argument that even a very poor, self funded researcher could have very good stuff to investigate time ordered processes and there was no need to physically real a bunch of dials and plot points in this day and age or rely on averaging analog meters.
Only "drop out" , "low order" web weenie types would dare defend a postion based on a "running variable process" hooked to analog meters.
Most CANR operators use DC in electrolysis for the most part, though pulsed electrolysis has and is being investigated.
Most software that I have seen and actually used allows for user selection of sampling bit number (precision), and through this, sample rate selection. If your process is fast and variable, but the need for precision only moderate, one might, with a 16 channel 32 bit block, claim and scan only two channels cyclically to a precision of only 6 or 8 bits. Achieving acceptable microsecond accuracy of two key conversions. Everyone here gets this concept though. Most good metrologists are awash in A-D blocks. and apply them regularly now. If you understand a process it is stupid to oversample or be confused by overmuch precision when not needed.
A good hunter knows both his weapons and his prey. He has little need for the 600 nitro express when hunting squirrels. Only a newbie would drag a 375 Holland and Holland out to a dear hunt.
Richard Hull |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by Chris Bradley on 2009-04-21 12:34
|
Richard Hull wrote:
> You can bet your booties that the dataloggers these guys are using are fast and not low dollar items.
I'll accept that they are not low dollar units. But are they fast enough?
> A good hunter knows both his weapons and his prey. He has little need for the 600 nitro express when hunting squirrels.
But if you don't know if you are hunting squirrels or polar bears, then best you pack all options?? What are we looking at, this fizz in a bottle - if there really is extra heat coming out which is not explained by current understanding, how can one convincingly say 'yes, I definitely am seeing the full time-evolved detail I need to see to examine this in full detail'? What *is* it that these experiments should be hunting down?? That's the very question, and if they knew that then why test for it. And if they don't know, then how do they know their kit is good enough? If you're into the 'telegrapher's equations' without realsing it then all heck will break loose in the accuracy of your measurements!
This is a hunt for an unknown mutant squirrel, and no-one yet knows if it is a 20 foot tall squirrel or a lot of 1/2 inch squirrels because no-one has yet seen one, or even if it is a squirrel at all! - the only trace is that a load of extra nuts have been buried ....... [this analogy has gone quite far enough!!!..] |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by Richard Hull on 2009-04-21 13:25
|
Since the energy out is most often measured thermoelectrically and the great levener and auto time ordering entity is the water or electrolyte I would imagine 1/10 second sampling would be oversampling. The speed would be more needful in the electrical input end to collect cell burps in current and voltage. I could not imagine a submicrosecond electrochemical event of significance.
I have talked with a number of superior metrologists regarding faster electro chemical events and two have meassured sub microsecond and upon analysis all along that curve not one event over 10 minutes was at more than the resolvable noise in the signal.
Significant nanosecond resolution events attributable to the process would tend to point to nuclear events, but who is to say it is attributable to the process and not a cosmic ray.
You quickly get bounced back to the analog sensors issue, in micro time scale data collection......Yet, another whole can of worms.
Richard Hull |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by Frank S. on 2009-04-21 14:14
|
Anybody that has ever charged a lead acid battery can attest to the fact that the current is always in flux. This is due to bubbles at the surface of the lead electrode shield the electrolyte from completing the circuit in that area. All of those bubble can add up to a significant fraction of the electrode surface and thus variablity in the power through the cell. I can say from my person experience with batteries it is clear that the changes in power happen in time frames that are fleeting to the eye. My guess is that the macroscopic manifestations happen in a hundreth of a second or less. Furthermore they can come in waves when a series of bubbles "wipes" other bubble free as the gas rises along the surface of the electrodes.
With such a phenomenon present, I can say as a scientist, that I would NEVER believe a result from cold fusion by the method that is in use. Unless of course that the magnitude of a repeatable experiment would dwarf the noise factor in the experiment by 100 fold or more on a regular and controllable basis.
Frank Sanns |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by Dustin on 2009-04-21 19:55
|
I have been following LENR with interest
An have attempted a couple of experiments myself.
The clincher for me was the exploded beaker photo which of course could
easily be explained by a hydrogen explosion but could be an indication of
something else at work. I suspected that (as in sonofusion attempts) that perhaps
acoustic shockwaves are contributing something to whatever is happening.
Most experiments I have seen use a cylindrical beaker with a central electrode
which if aligned perfectly centrally will focus any acoustic shockwaves back onto the electrode.
Perhaps this alignment is one of the differences between a cell which produces excess heat and one which does not and confounds repeatability.
Electrolysis is a very noisy affair.
To this end I attempted to create a water plasma and with a thin wire electrode at the central focus and modulate the current with a pulse generator at the acoustic resonance of the cell. In this way the shockwave compresses the plasma at a time when it is trying to expand creating much greater pressures.
I planned to revisit this and now have a spherical tool steel cell which should give better focus. Alas I have lots of cool projects vying for my time.
Dustin |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by Dave Cooper on 2009-04-22 19:51
|
I've also tried to maintain an "open mind" with regard to the various forms of CF work.
It is doubtful from the descriptions given in technical papers that very many of the issues of resolution can be answered, simply by reading the papers. Only when someone uses equipment about which you have personal, hands-on knowledge, can you determine if they actually have used something that is capable of yielding what they claim to observe.
Classic examples would be, say using amn O'scope that is far too slow in time response to conclude about some result. Major gaffes like this would be no doubt caught long before going to press. It IS one of the big benefits of peer reviewed publication.
Electrochemical measurements involve polarization potentials, potentiostatic and/or constatn current power supplies. These are needed to be able to set current densities, and thus anticipated ion concentrations in the parts of an experiment.
These systems are generally run in a closed loop fashion, and have quite low frequency response to the loop gain. This is not usually a limitation or concern in such work.
I noted several references to "power" gains from some of the test reports. In systems where there may "long" time constant energy storage and delivery processes, the power data has to be integrated over "long" times to determine if there IS excess energy. Power out over power in... applied to a discharging capacitor could yield spectacular results that are clearly in error. Energy out over energy in on a long enough time base, gives the proper result.
But as we know all too well, "long" time intergrations done with instruments need some very carefully debugged systems, before you can go to the bank with the results. And this applies whether the systems are digital or analog. There are some fundamental theories from statistics about limitations on the resolution of these processes.
From my vantage point, it is hard to say who is blowing smoke and who has actually got something. Time will tell, here.
Dave Cooper |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by Dustin on 2009-04-23 02:39
|
I found this article today on the biased and fraudulent discrediting of
Pons/Fl by MIT who ran the experiment for D2O and H2O and then manipulated the data to show no excess energy.
57 Odd pages of evidence, resignations and skullduggery.
Very well written unbiased and interesting read.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf
Dustin. |
|
Subject Re: Cold Fusion on 60 Minutes!
Posted by John Futter on 2009-04-23 04:31
|
Cold / Warm/ or Hot fusion who cares about the heat output, fusion implies a nuclear reaction ---where are the neutrons / Gammas / Alphas --- or are they cold too?????. with the claimed excess energy these should stand out like dog nuts
At work we have one of the most accurate Tritium water dating laboratories in the world. The trituim is concentrated by electrolysis. I know by the troubles the lab has had that these electrolysis cells are fort with many problems and the conditioning of the cells before any measurements can take place can take many many months if not years. We are not concerned by current measurement our concern is total amp/secs input. Ergs, Joules or what ever unit you might like to measure it in and then do it with a certainty of a few parts per million over a month.
The measurement of amp/secs over the time frames for us and the cold fusioneers is not trivial and does not imply the use of HP(agilent) / Fluke 6 digit multimeters as seen in the linked video on this post (these units average / sample and are dead for a while while converting and therefore with a noisy process {electrolysis} will miss transient conditions. These conditions are not gaussian but are extraordinarily long term random events {years maybe}) hence our cell conditioning.
The next thing not mentioned by anybody so far is that an electrolysed cell with plenty of free oxygen and hydrogen free molecules present will work in reverse albeit depending on the cell construction as a recombination cell (read fuel cell). Does palladium when stressed by hydrogen packing aid this erratically ???? i don't know.
plenty of science to come on this subject |
|
 |  |