Violation of First Principles of Physics?

Long run(57 minutes) but really interesting.

Thanks for the warning - will watch later

Inquiring minds want to know:

Watch first 5 minutes.If not interested, no problem.

Cold fusion? Yes.

Over unity?No.

Sonoluminescemce explained? Maybe.

XRay without external HV Source? Yes.

Static charge transfer explained?No.

There are problems, yet unsolved problems, yet undemonstrated cases, and extensions of (a particular case of) physics, an extension of physics itself, much before there is any reason to think of OP's proposal, no matter how SF worthy.

The sonoluminescence, and tape X-ray pose no barrier to me, maybe because I normally put priority in observation, over theory.

The third, of the "cold fusion" flavor is bothersome. Simply, because it seems to violate basic principles established since Niels Bohr's time. So many -mostly crank - attempts were made at it, that professional physicists react testily to another attempt. High energy particle physics is so bloody complete, precise, that it leaves hardly any air for anything else. Now, if I want to be really naughty, astronomy mentioning black matter, energy, etc. also does not fit into the conventional framework. And those folks seem to be respectable, at least to me.

Simply exercising my naughty side.

Dr.Putterman is a well respected physicist and his work has been reviewed and duplicated.Even so, there is much that current physics cannot explain using conventional theory.Such as static charge transfer.We know it happens, but how?

Neutrons were generated at room temperature, and were verified.Neutron emission is the fingerprint of fusion.However, he clearly stated that it took more energy in than was produced out.So far.

We all know that hydrogen is a low yield fuel for fusion, but Helium 3 is much more efficient,producing much less wasted energy as neutrons.

Problem is, H3 is very rare here on earth.More valuable than gold,diamonds,platinum combined.

However, the moon is saturated in H3.The lunar rocks have been bombarded with it for billions of years.

Why do you think there is a sudden impetus to get back to that big chunk of green$$$ cheese?If the moon were made of solid gold, it would not be worth it to bring it back to earth.H3 however, is a different story.The country that develops an efficient method of getting H3 back to Earth will be more powerful that any OPEC ever imagined.

A couple of tons of the stuff,in fusion mode, could supply the world's energy needs for quite a while.

Seems simple:Accelerate the mass over the gravity "Hump" and provide guidance once the Earth's gravity takes over.I realize it is very complicated,but it is do-able.

We landed a vehicle safely on Mars,with similar weight,with no monetary return.

Extreme high altitude parachutes sound familiar?

Little baby steps.

With the possible future development of high-stress nano-sized crystals, it may be possible, especially if combined with the rapid temperature and pressure change of sonoluminescence to produce clean energy.

SF worthy?Of course.That is a compliment.SF has always preceeded science by many years.

I expect to see Dr.Putterman's name as a future Pultizer Prize candidate.

"Accelerate the mass over the gravity "Hump" and provide guidance once the Earth's gravity takes over."

Speaking of SF and throwing rocks from the Moon to the Earth, reference "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein. He laid it all out in this 1966 novel, except they were throwing wheat instead of H3 saturated rocks.

Hooker

Do not dismiss this simply because of the title.View the video and then decide in a fully scientific method.

If the phenomena in the video do not confuse you, please let the scientific community at large be illuminated by your superior insight and knowledge.

Let's separate different issues.

1,.The physics of the high energy reactions of Hydrogen / Deuterium / Tritium is well known. D is available in large amounts, but T is very rare, and accordingly fabulously expensive. Robotic collection on the Moon's surface would automatically pay for its collection and return to Earth. Even, when availability would bring its price down to mere stratospheric.

2,. The video presentation was interesting. The phenomena interesting, and practically no supporting physical explanation was offered, not even on a phenomenological or plain engineering level.

3,. The TiNio crystal emitting particles with fair energies is really hard to swallow. If it is readily repeatable, it is surface physics of solids. Some 30 years ago, when MOS transistors were attempted (the Si-SiO-metal variety), the researchers were flummoxed by the complexity of the solid surface's behaviour. That specialty of physics is still developing today, with good understanding now. That was a fairly straightforward challenge, compared to energetic particle emission without external accelerating fields.

A phenomenon is accepted only after others could repeat it. The presenter did show a case, where another lab reported neutrons, and his lab was unable to reproduce it. Therefore, that case is in limbo for now.

And NO, I had no intention of sounding negative. These things are difficult, and results come in spurts and stops. Lately, to cheer you up, NASA and CERN held a symposium on the matter of LENR (low energy neutron reactions) based on some unverified findings - as far as I know - that an electron film over an electrode interact with protons intruding into the crystal, producing neutrons. Now, that is novel, contrary what I have learned. But keeping an open mind.