cold fusion is it real

Heres a email I received some time ago on the matter. I don't know how many of the links work



In a recent 'Cold Fusion' PowerPedia:Cold fusion - PESWiki overview the manner and method of the 'cold fusion' introduction upon the world scientific community is claimed to have been controversial and unique from the usual methods of investigatory review. Yes, indeed it was unique, and yes, also indeed, it was controversial-but when you consider the fantastic 'nature' of the claim with its 'extraordinary' and controversial claim of achievement at 'room temperature'-you begin to realize that Drs. Pons and Fleischmann were making and

declaring 'breakthrough' [scientific] research-unparalleled in human history. They, as history has ultimately proven, provided the modern world with a new 'novelty of fact' that could not be explained with the then current 'research methods' of the twentieth (20th) century. Their statement-at the time appeared laughable, yes, and outright 'comical.' And under such circumstance, it would have been absolutely impossible to have overcome the inertial and myopic intransigence of the stodgy and staid 'resolve' of the imbedded festering 'scientific community' who resembled mere 'parasites' rather than learned and educated men of science.

The 'parasitic' nature of the current 'scientific community' has never been addressed-by anyone. They have been accepted as the 'status quo' and have been given substantial access to the unlimited 'largesse' of the federal government running into the 'billions of dollars' annually for the last thirty (30) years, who like 'pigs feeding at the trough' have availed to themselves unparalleled fiefdoms at the expense of the rest of the community. Their failed attempts at creating 'hot fusion' chambers known as 'tokomaks' costing billions of dollars to build and further billions to maintain-today appear almost 'laughable,' if it were not tragic that this is the very group who scorned and laughed at Messr's., Dr. B. Stanley Pons, professor of chemistry at the University of Utah, and Dr. Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton in England, when they presented their 'novelty of fact.' Indeed, both of these 'historic' men of true science were railroaded out of their positions of prominence-as a result of their audacity to circumvent the 'intransigence' of the 'scientific' peer-reviewed system-when they went 'public.'

Could it be that there is much more to this story than meets the eye? Why would two prominent men of science with impeccable records and substantial qualifications to boot-risk everything, including their careers-just to prove that you could have 'nuclear reactions at room temperature?' Why risk your tenure-your security-your reputation-and ultimately your sanity-unless there was a bigger picture, a greater reality, and an ultimate truth.

Extraordinary claims, especially those declared by Pons and Fleischmann, required extraordinary proofs. These two gentleman stated that they had achieved 'nuclear reactions at room temperature' on a tabletop under ordinary lab conditions-a remarkable statement. A statement-so profound, that it shattered the known 'paradigm' of acceptable 'science'-ultimately challenging the very foundations upon which the current and former edifice of 'science' had prevailed since the early 1940's under Einstein, Fermi and Szilard.

But as you will see from my research, the proofs are readily available to those who are willing to recognize and openly confess the reality of Nature-and of Nature's laws. For indeed most 'science' is Cold Fusion and Other Paradigm Shifts merely the attempt at duplication of known 'natural' occurrences within the known 'natural' world all around us.



All the Best,

Leslie R. Pastor

Personal Research: http://quanthomme.free.fr/energielib...n/liensff.html



PS: Nuclear Reactions transpire all around us within the living natural world among plant life commonly referred to as transmutation.



Research:



[Introduction]

The controversy of a 'star in a jar'.

Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion

Pro-Fusion and Con-Fusion

Alternate View Column AV-36

An Embarrassing Editorial

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/43nature.html

Another Testimony

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/132martin.html

A Judges' Verdict [Italy]

Cold Fusion & Judge's Verdict in Italy

What is Cold Fusion?

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/courses/...old_fusion.htm

cold fusion: Definition from Answers.com

A Cold Fusion Primer

Brad Cox, Ph.D.

When Discovery and Invention Don't Mix

http://www.iath.virginia.edu/~meg3c/id/TCC313/etheric.html

The Return of Cold Fusion

Hal Plotkin -- Power To The People The Return of Cold Fusion

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shad...roject173.html

Cold Fusion Rides Again / Science magazine publishes more evidence of tabletop nuclear reactions

Excess Heat

Cold Fusion

Cold Fusion: The Experimental Evidence [Book] Dr. Edmund Storms

21st Century Science and Technology Summer 2009

Peter Hagelstein: Warming Up To Cold Fusion [MIT]

Warming Up to Cold Fusion (washingtonpost.com)

Alternative Energy: The Cold Fusion

Alternative Energy: The Cold Fusion

Cold Fusion [links] Data

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/

Executive Summary Regarding Cold Fusion

Cold Fusion Research: Executive Summary

Tom Bearden and Eugene Mallove Correspondence Regarding Cold Fusion

The Tom Bearden Website

Jean-Louis Naudin's Verification of Cold Fusion

The Cold Fusion Reactor v1.0 by JL Naudin

The CFR project, a High Temperature Plasma Electrolysis project by JL Naudin

Is the Earth A Cold Fusion Reactor?

The Earth As A Cold Fusion Reactor



[Evidence]

Eugene Mallove

Eugene Mallove

http://www.evworld.com/archives/inte.../mallove1.html

James Patterson

http://www.alumni.ca/~zhan4m0/Support.htm

Data Verses Dogma

Data Versus Dogma: The Continuing Battle Over Cold Fusion

Russ George

From: "Russ George" <rgeorge@hooked

Unveiling the mystery of cold nuclear fusion, Interview with Russ George, by Connie Hargrave; Share International Archives

http://www.d2fusion.com/

http://discuss.foresight.org/critmai...nano/4909.html



Misc:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lon...xcessheata.pdf [Excess Heat Measurements]

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

Alternative Energy: Cold Fusion: Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)

The Significance of Dr. Eugene Mallove's graceful tenacity, integrity, and intent

http://www.evg-ars.narod.ru/shauberg1.htm

http://users.pandora.be/wouter.termo...rom_others.htm

Cold Fusion: The Secret Energy Revolution by Antony C. Sutton [1925-2002]

http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000004.html

Cold Fusion Is Proven Technology (Anthony Sutton's Book)

Latest From Future Technology Intelligence Report

Antony Sutton Bibliography

http://www.ctrl.org/sutton/suttonFTR.html

http://www.skattabrain.com/books-all...old-Fusion.php














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



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOn...vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Three new newsgroups for energy2000
---------------------------------------------
A general issues newsgroup at
energy2000g : Energy2000g

An actual energy generation invention group at
energy2000inventions : energy2000inventions

The encyclopedia of free energy CD Buyers only newsgroup
energy2000encyclopediabuyers : Energy 2000 encyclopedia buyers
--------------------------------------------
Members please refrain from animated religious and political discussions and material of a sexual nature.
--------------------------------------------

A complete list of topics and articles from all our energy21 websites (over 200megs + that was removed and destroyed without the owners permission from our Fortunecity site can now only be obtained on CD for details check the files section of our energy 2000/energy21 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/files/
************************************************************************
NB:
Articles and photographs and experimental details from all deleted or destroyed now deleted websites can be found on only our new CD.

Information on Energy 21's recently updated and expanded CD entitled the Experimenters Guide to Non Conventional energy technologies
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energy2000/files/
Cost is now $50 Australian dollars or equal amount in US or Euro Dollars
Look for complete ordering details from time to time via this newsgroup
*********************************************

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
energy2000 : Energy2000/Energy21

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Yahoo! Terms of Service

Well, 20 years after the original anouncment, no team of physicists has been able to confirm the Pons-Fleischmann experiment or produce a working device that even demonstrates the principal, or even a well agreed and persuasive theory of what was happening, so I'd say 'myth busted'.

Don't confuse cold fusion with regular fusion research, which hasn't produced a working fusion reactor yet - the principals of (regular) fusion are very well confirmed, but going from the theory to working model is an enormous engineering challenge.

Think of the progress of regular fusion as akin to trying to build one of today's desktop computers with the electronics of the 1950's - it can't be done without a certain level of technology (would you have believed in 1999 that the average loungeroom TV just ten years later would have a 40-50 inch screen and be thinner than the Sydney yellow pages?). You've got to build the infrastructure to build the technology to build the lab equipment just so you can see what set of engineering problems you have to solve next.

As for science being resistant to paradigm shifts...only when there is no (or low quality) data to support what is being proposed. It's like the Large Hadron Collider at the moment - there are many in the scientific world looking forward to it confirming the existing theories, but half of these are also hoping that it disproves them so they have to rethink it all!

I'm not sure of any actual research done by Leslie Pastor on cold fusion.
However, I notice that he was (maybe still is) an associate professor at Seton Hall University in the modern languages department.
Cheers,
Jim

Modern Languages? Well he's obviously the best person to talk to about cold fusion then.

Free energy?...I'll believe that when I see it (looking at latest electricity bill).

Cold Fusion is a dangerous concept as it provides the possibility of low or free power to the masses. If it can be free then there not much profit to be had by any company or Government. Which in return makes not very attractive to those companies involved with energy supply or Governments.

A major part of any research funding is by industry to solve problems industry can benefit from. Why would they want to spend their money on anything else.

J.P.Morgan and Tesla had a major disagreement with the development of Polyphase power generation. He [Tesla] wanted to give it away to the world free and devised a method to do so. J.P.Morgan asked "Where can I put the meter?" and that was the end of that and today its still pretty much the same.

You know I have to wade in, cna't help myself. :)

Dons rose tinted glasses, settles back in comfy chair and prepares to address the proliteriate from the daius...

Once upon a time scientists took what they did very seriously. There was no money in science, no celebrity and if anything a patronising derision from wider society. People who did science did it because they were passionate about it. The peer review system was flawless because most scientists took it seriously. Raw data and methodologies were available to anyone that asked and every paper was torn apart mercilessly, any flaw exposed.

Somewhere along the line this changed. Science was always viciously political, but the self promoters took over, people no longer had the time to interogate one another's work properly and teh focus shifted demonstrably from producing the best work you could to getting teh longest publications list, and then the longest citations list. Recently it has degraded further to having the biggest media profile. Throughout this a growing emphasis on ability to attract research grants grew, and so grant applications have degenerated into a popury of buzz words on whatever is in the news this week. The politicans throw money at it then claim they are addressing the "problem".

Because the work is no longer robust, data gets hidden or "lost". Global warming is a good example of this, road crash data in australia is another. How can you justify your carbon tax/anti speeding campains if the data doesn't support your assertions ? So you either hide the data or obfuscate it as much as you can.

Pons and Fleischman committed a sin of ego. Pressured by their managment they broke an agreement to co publish in the normal channels and called a high profile media conference to announce their great breakthrough, and sideline their collaborators.

Neither are nuclear physicists and they didn't fully understand what they had observed. There may be elements of atomic activity in the experiment, but it is elusive with many researchers trying to reproduce or approximate the effect with very mixed results. It may have been a combination of issues with the experiment. The claimed result is not robust. Their sin was not conducting an imperfect experiment. If that were the caes I'd be burning in hell right now. You often do a few duds trying to build one that works correctly. Their sin was jumping the gate, very publicly, and then being shown to have made mistakes.

If the scientific system worked properly it would be fullproof against corruption and secrecy. It doesn't work properly anymore. Believe nothing without independant confirmation. This site is endlessly entertaining.

Watts Up With That?

Pons and Fleischman's claims were discredited...by their peers. The system worked exactly as it is supposed to. Their peers (fellow scientists) tried to reproduce Pon's and Fleischman's experiment and get the same results...but they couldn't.

They couldn't reliably, there has been some effects noted since, it's just that it's not reliably reproducable and may not be an atomic reaction.

The thing is if they had published normally, the experiment would have been done by others, flaws identified, and further work carried on as normal. Instead in the rush for profile and money they went public and the work got overtaken by media and politics. They were savaged not because they stuffed up, but because they made such a hoo ha about it. People make mistakes all the time, and quite a few get published. Most don't stress when they are proven wrong, it's just part of the process.

The process used to be open and transparent. It isn't anymore. People who aren't sure of the robustness of their work, or who are too egotistical to accept scrutiny think up every excuse not to release data.

Anyway, off to gods country tomorrow...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

They couldn't reliably, there has been some effects noted since, it's just that it's not reliably reproducable and may not be an atomic reaction.

---

Not "reliably reproducable"?????

Rubbish.....you reproduce the experiment set up exactly the same way that P and F had it set up and you attempt to get exactly the same results they claimed to have achieved. If you get exactly the same results every time you run the experiement then F and P's claims are proved right, if you don't get exactly the same results then F and P's claims are invalidated.

If F and P's results are not "reliably reproducable" or there is any doubt that the phenomena being observed are the result of an atomic reaction then straight away you've invalidated F and P's claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

They couldn't reliably, there has been some effects noted since, it's just that it's not reliably reproducable and may not be an atomic reaction.



Anyway, off to gods country tomorrow...:)

---

I'll be at the Murray to greet you:D