On the topic of overcoming the arguments of such hardened pseudo-scientist-skeptics as you encountered at the DOE, I suggest you are making the wrong argument to break past their inept mindset.
"I have had an extended discussions with them about LENR and can confirm that the universal consensus there is that LENR is impossible because there is now way of overcoming the Coulomb barrier at low temperature." The counter to that argument is the heroic work of Tom Claytor at/from LANL demonstrating production of tritium from an electrochemical LENR cell. Unlike helium as a LENR product, which is hard to prove didn't come from an atmospheric leak, tritium does not exist in the atmosphere in any measurable quantity. Its short half life (12.3 years) quickly rids the environment of any significant accumulation. Tritium CANNOT be produced from a chemical reaction - only from a nuclear reaction. Tom Claytor is a tritium detection expert and has repeatedly demonstrated tritium production from his electrochemical cells. He has produced tritium without commensurate release of neutrons. This is not possible on the basis of conventional fusion theory - neither the production of tritium nor the lack of commensurate neutron emission. This is a clearly refutes the skeptic's position in his argument that the Coulomb barrier cannot be overcome at low temperature. If that fundamental argument is wrong, what else do they have wrong? Such "scientists", with a position like the one quoted above, are pseudo-scientists. They have lost the perspective of what Physics IS. Physics is the science of modeling natural phenomena using mathematics. Natural phenomena are infinitely complex, and no model created has ever or ever will completely and perfectly model all natural phenomena. Like any physical model for a sub-behavior of natural phenomena, the model is only useful within bounds determined by the original simplifying assumptions used to begin development of the model. Such simplifying assumptions are almost always lost to the users of handy mathematical models over the course of the years. Many pseudo-scientists (and this is what makes them "pseudo-") come to believe that the model is a complete description of natural phenomena. Such people will gloss over anomalies in the data that fall outside of modeled behavior because the model is presumed to be complete and correct - so the anomalies must be error. These people don't look into the nature of the anomalies to see if the difference is consistent with statistics of random error. Ed Storms neatly examines in his book, why on a statistical basis, LENR outcomes cannot be just due to error (he is a first class scientist). There is a whole field of science in data restoration (for example image restoration) that iteratively seeks to model the source image, apply modeled known defects to the image, and looks at what is left over. Does the remaining data have the characteristics of random noise or is there still entropy in the residual error data? If there is still entropy (information), then the model for the uncorrupted image data is not yet correct. The underlying model simplification that is at the core of the Coulomb barrier argument is a model based on the two-body problem - a drastically simplified model of natural behavior in the vicinity of a random collision of two isolated ions in a plasma. This has an analog in planetary science - the two-body orbital model. Kepler neatly solved for the orbits of two bodies in 1605. However, what was really desired was a good closed form orbital model for the Earth-Moon-Sun for navigational calculations. In 1887, Poincare showed that for 3 or more bodies, there is no closed form mathematical solution - the problem is infinitely complex and the behavior depends upon the infinitely variable initial conditions. To arrive at a solution, presumptions must be made to simplify the problem; and the solution, thus realized is only useful within the bounds of the foundation presumptions. Compare this to condensed matter nuclear reactions - 10s, 100s, 1000s or more bodies may be involved in the reactions. How could one possibly suspect that there would be no cracks in application of a LENR model based on isolated 2-body ion collisions? This 2-body model is the basis of the understanding of the pseudo-scientists. To top this off, most do not realize how bad is the current state of modeling of the nucleus. No single nuclear model predicts all measured behaviors today. Further, NONE, of the mainstream models for the nucleus predict naturally observed asymmetric nuclear fission - they predict even split fission; AND, fission is the most used nuclear phenomenon! Bob Higgins On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 9:34 AM, a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: > Jed, > I disagree with your repeated comments about the "experts" understanding > global warming. > I wrote "There is nothing unusual about the weather." If you follow the > link you will see that is true. > > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/29/climate-and-human-civilization-over-the-last-18000-years-2/ > Not to mention that the satellite temperature measurements show no > increase for the last ~19 years which falsifies the IPCC model projections. > > Likewise, THE government expertise in energy is supposed to reside in the > Dept of Energy. I have had an extended discussions with them about LENR > and can confirm that the universal consensus there is that LENR is > impossible because there is now way of overcoming the Coulomb barrier at > low temperature. I have a friend there that tries to bring up the > subject, but he is told to shut up as LENR is pseudo science. Experts are > not immune from group-think. > > In frustration I wrote the following letter on 7/7/2015. I have not > received a reply. > > To Dr. Ernest Moniz - Secretary of Energy > > Dear Dr. Moniz, > > I read that you have been closely associated with DOE and MIT for many > years. Why have both those organizations ignored LENR (aka cold fusion)? > In fact both were involved in the infanticide of that field in 1989 – > 1990. May I suggest you read the few pages by Beaudette linked here to see > why that was a mistake? > <http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf> > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf > > See also the special section on LENR in *Current Science,* starting with > McKubre’s paper. > <http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special%20Section:%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reactions&featid=10094> > http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?feature=Special%20Section:%20Low%20Energy%20Nuclear%20Reactions&featid=10094 > > The game changed after Andrea Rossi contacted Prof Focardi in 2007 and he > demonstrated a reactor called the E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) in 2011 that was > capable of generating kW of heat. Developed with his own funds, some > details of the design were not released. The refusal of the Patent Office > to consider patents on cold fusion – thanks to DOE staff – didn’t help. > > In 2013-2014 ELFORSK (Swedish equivalent of EPRI) tested the later high > temperature E-Cat twice at Lugano. The second time for a month, when it > produced 1.5 MW of excess heat. Late last year and again this year Dr. > Parkhomov replicated the Lugano test in Russia. Reported at the ICCF-19 > Conference. > > > <http://www.scribd.com/doc/242284200/Observation-of-abundant-heat-production-from-a-reactor-device-and-of-isotopic-changes-in-the-fuel> > http://www.scribd.com/doc/242284200/Observation-of-abundant-heat-production-from-a-reactor-device-and-of-isotopic-changes-in-the-fuel > > Rossi sold the rights for the E-Cat to Industrial Heat LLC over a year > ago. They have built a 1 MW thermal LENR plant that has been operating for > 137 days (*now 9 months*)as part of a one year trial. Norway's largest > newspaper Aftenposten has reported they have expert third party > confirmation that it is operating well Other independent reports are that > it is running well with a COP of 20 – 80(!) Photos of the plant > <http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/>http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/ > LENR is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Some of your people like NASA > Chief Scientist Dennis Bushnell endorse it but DOE doesn’t. From direct > experience of DOE (eg. cleaning up the radwaste at Hanford – we would have > finished by now) I don’t expect DOE to help, but you should re-evaluate > money you are spending on renewable energy, like ITER and solar, and fire > the group-think physicists who have provided such poor advice, missing > something as important as LENR. > > You have been with tasked with implementing critical Department *of *Energy > missions in support of President Obama's goals of growing the economy, > enhancing security and protecting the environment. But by not even > considering cheap, safe, pollution free LENR I think you have failed in > your duty. > Sincerely, > > Adrian Ashfield >
