NASA’s Cold Fusion Tech Could Put a Nuclear Reactor in Every Home, Car, and Plane

Who's scooping whom--these guys or Focardi & Rossi?

"LENR is absolutely nothing like either fission or fusion."

It's something like fusion in that it doesn't work....

Some would argue fusion does work, almost too well in some cases:

The only trouble of course is harnessing that energy and distributing it for domestic purposes.

What do you mean???

You only have to set one of these off for a given area and everyone within the proper distance will never have to worry about, or pay for electricity or gasoline again (I hear there are also tax benefits).

"Some would argue fusion does work, almost too well in some cases:"

Not for a sustained output....and without that, it is useless....

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4279967

Just to make sure you are not getting the wrong idea:

I am highly suspect of the claims made in the article. I am also very surprised that NASA has allowed its name used in conjunction.

.

I'm not suggesting LERN is legitimate, I'm just giving you a hard time for likening it to fusion. We know fusion works. Our very existence depends on it. We have also made functioning tools that use fusion. LERN is very different.

.'...Not for a sustained output.....'

Sustained?!? What length of time satisfies your requirement for something to be sustained, SolarEagle?

.

Are you suggesting man made the Sun? We are talking about man made devices here....

OK. I give.

You assessment of LERN being equivalent to Fusion because neither one works, is completely reasonable.

Fusion doesn't work obviously.

....

Oh, well yeah, we've made functioning tools with it..... But you can't count that because a new rule has just been made up that the duration is insufficient to qualify for this discussion.

....

Oh well yeah, it does work for a reasonably long time, if you consider the sun.... But you can't count that because a new rule has just been made up that anything that is not done by man, cannot be considered 'to work'. So while human evolution still works, evolution for giraffes does not work, unless artificial insemination is involved.

Important note: Everyone please continue to 'do' gravity for yourself and everything around you, otherwise there are likely to be some severe missile hazards shortly.

.

The preceding statement has been brought to you by the letter W and the letter T and the letter F. Additional assistance provided by a serious gang of question marks and exclamation points.

"You assessment of LERN being equivalent to Fusion because neither one works, is completely reasonable."

I might add truthful....

'Truthful'?

All vainglory aside, it isn't clear you should be trusted with that assessment.

Everyone has their individual strengths and that's just not one of yours.

You should focus on things at which you excel ....something like 'Consistency at All Costs'.

I don't see that you have any more truthiness than me.... belligerence maybe....misplaced intellectual pride ? imo definitely.....

See #14

I find the claim that power from LERN of this type being able to be able to replace all fossil fuel use to be extremely suspect.

.

It is even more questionable when they throw in the quote about being able to do this with less than 1% of the yearly mined nickel.

.

We are talking about a reaction that to date, has produced energy of such a diminutive magnitude, whether any was actually produced is not obvious.

.

The transmutation to date has been something that requires careful analysis to detect. I don't think they have even detected any gamma rays that can be attributed to the reaction with any certainty.

.

Nickel is comprised of generally neutron poor isotopes. Most Nickel (over 94%) is Ni-58 AND Ni-60.

Ni-59 has a half life of over 75,000 years. Ni-58, Ni-60, Ni-61, Ni-62 are all stable.

It sounds like either some typically expensive separation of isotopes will be required, OR the typical nickel nucleus will have to absorb as many as 5 neutrons to reach an unstable Isotope.

.

Given that the heat from any reaction so far has been so difficult to detect, it doesn't seem like there is much room for transmuting through 4 extra isotopes before expecting a return.

.

Seems pretty ambitious. I'm not saying that it hasn't been said before, it just seems odd to have 'NASA' so unambiguously branded on this statement after event of the past couple years.

It looks like some people are taking it seriously:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/02/lockheed-martins-skunk-works-shooting-for-100-mw-fusion-prototype-by-2017/

I'd love to see something come out that was very small and able to run a house, or maybe several; but it will never be allowed to happen.

The link you provided is about 'hot' fusion, not LENR.

.

That would have lent it a little bit more credibility in my book.....but, SolarEagle has been kind enough to make the declaration (in no uncertain terms) that 'hot' fusion does not work (not even in the sun). Any discussion of the matter has become futile, because how could he be wrong?

.

Hot or cold, I think it's only a matter of time until some really smart people come up with something that works.

Whether or not the government allows it to see the light of day, is another matter.

I suggest further study in material science, specifically the spontaneous polarization of YttriumSiliconOxynitride(YSiO2N).

The link below is interesting in whole or in part, but to skip to the current subject of interest,go to approx.39:00 of the video.

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=20888

That video is obviously a scam. SolarEagle has already told us that Fusion does not work, and that video tells a story about working fusion. Those charlatans!

I know I'm just a layman, but I'm of the steady opinion that for fusion, we have to duplicate the action of the core of a sun, which is a little heavy spot getting friction-electron-photon...burn from intense, cycling plasma shears. It is magnet within magnet, which in my small mind I see us trying to approximate with our best imperfect ring technology, but I'm just me. We that think that fusion can start from a cold source aren't of a mind on just how, but this is a game of setting up potentials as local environments, not in cramming something other than a couple of positive plasma shears on top of our locale, based in ice, just water ice, so that as the shears hit, it's like stamping a circuit, and wired for neg, tube mag protected, ready to pull from outside. Positive will win, but when the smash comes, what was the core in that ice will change, with direction already having been achieved with just spinning the magnets in air, encasing them in water(yes, slows down spin, but direction is achieved, freeze) and thus becoming a stamp-able circuit with core potential when our imperfect oxygen isotope neo mag collapses, generating top end fusion. Or has this been thought of? Or is there any help for a guy like me? As I see the fusion thing, there could be a risk in turning a plasma based flow generator into a water generator, but I don't know as much as I should about some stuff. A water generator could actually be pretty handy for NASA, couldn't it?

And the debate fell strangely quiet after post#16........is this the lull before the storm,or have the critics been silenced?

We move on.....

" This oscillation excites the nickel's electrons, which are forced into the hydrogen ions (protons), forming slow-moving neutrons. "

Do terahertz waves take the place of neutrinos and gluons and such? Neutrons can decay into a proton, electron, and anti-neutrino, if I remember correctly, (beta decay), but proton absorbing an electron without some kind of photon emission for energy lost by the electron seems wrong.

Besides, if it doesn't involve dilithium, it's probably a dead-end.

'...proton absorbing an electron without some kind of photon emission for energy lost by the electron seems wrong.....'

.

Since free thermal neutrons have a pretty short half-life (in minutes, right?) it would stand to reason that protium is at a lower energy level than the free thermal neutron.

That implies energy is required, so the emission of a photon is not likely.