With Bloom Boxes and whatnot, you'd think the availability of energy would be sky-high and dirt-cheap (no pun intended), but to paraphrase Actor212, all of this has that old cold fusion smell.
With Artificial Photosynthesis, A Bottle of Water Could Produce Enough Energy To Power A House | Popular Science "...One of the interesting side effects of last year's stimulus bill was $400 million in funding for ARPA-E, the civilian, energy-focused cousin of DARPA. And in this week's first ever ARPA-E conference, MIT chemist Dan Nocera showed how well he put that stimulus money to use by highlighting his new photosynthetic process. Using a special catalyst, the process splits water into oxygen and hydrogen fuel efficiently enough to power a home using only sunlight and a bottle of water..."
9 comments:
I suggest you learn something about cold fusion. See:
http://lenr-canr.org
I've been keeping up with new physics for years, and while there is experimental proof of various energy increases, the promised commercial applications have yet to appear.
Here's something for you: click
< a href http://www.skeptic.com/searchresults.html?cx=014755677047532667668%3Aunkowbetm3s&cof=FORID%3A11&q=cold+fusion&sa=search+skeptic.com&siteurl=www.skeptic.com%2F#913>
I do not know who promised these commercial applications you refer to, or what they promised. I have read thousands of papers on the subject. The claims made in most of these papers have been widely replicated and they are real.
Your link to skeptic.com does not seem to work. Anyway, the skeptic.com web site does not appear to have any relevant expertise on this subject. If you wish to learn about it I suggest you read mainstream, peer-reviewed journal papers on this topic rather than skeptic.com.
Gee, I kinda remember some extravagant claims being made at the original press conference, but you are preaching to the choir, and I don't even like Skeptic.com, but a simple search revealed a good many articles slamming cold fusion. You seem to be up on the subject, so how many times has an experiment resulted in more energy out than energy in? My issue has more to do with Back To The Future and Mr.Fusion.
If you decide to go over to Skeptic.com and tell them they are a pack of idiots, please let me know.
You wrote:
"Gee, I kinda remember some extravagant claims being made at the original press conference . . ."
I do not think the claims were extravagant, since they were all confirmed within a year or so. The press conference has been uploaded to YouTube, so you can watch it and judge for yourself.
The Congressional testimony was similar to the press conference. You can read it here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CSSThearingbef.pdf
(This Acrobat file is kind of messy and large. I will reduce the size of it next week.)
Well, I spent an hour or so over on YouTube, but i never did find the original press conference, though I did see the original 60 Minutes report and apparently there was some claim about hot water heaters.
Anyway, I watched Dr. Duncan's Missouri talk and he said what I've said-- that there apparently is some there there but we don't know what's going on so that puts us a long ways off from any commercial application.
The pdf was quite the tome, btw; I read bits and pieces but there's way more than I have time to delve into. Duncan's talk summarized, I think, where we are today quite well.
You couldn't find the press conference? Krivit uploaded it. Hmmm . . . . It is hard to find. I should put a link to it from LENR-CANR.org. It is here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5820042344911746802&ei=rtSSS4uFGJfCrALEr5y_Ag&q#
I agree with Duncan for the most part but I lean toward McKubre's point of view expressed at the end of the CBS video. He thinks that practical applications are closer than Duncan estimates. There was a spirited discussion of this at ICCF-15. Everyone in the field agrees that a great deal of hard work and many unanswered questions remain.
Roughly 100 experts in the Navy and Army contributed to the recent U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report on cold fusion: "Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance" DIA-08-0911-003, 13 November 2009. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf
I would say it leans to McKubre's point of view. Those people are only interested in practical applications and they are well aware of the progress being made in nano-particle cold fusion, mainly in China, which should worry them a little. The NRL nano-particle experiments ran from scratch (with completely de-gassed material) hundreds of times in a row successfully. That's miraculous progress compared to previous experiments.
"The NRL nano-particle experiments ran from scratch (with completely de-gassed material) hundreds of times in a row successfully. That's miraculous progress compared to previous experiments."
Well, I certainly didn't know that! Indeed, I will have to move my thinking closer to McKubre. Thanks for all the links I'll peruse them in theday or so.
There is a link to the NRL slides (Kidwell) in the second news item here:
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
They can run the experiment hundreds of times because it is automated. Mostly automated. Kidwell showed me he was monitoring it by remote access on his laptop in Rome, Italy. He had to call someone in DC to go in and reset some instrument.
Post a Comment