There seem to be many sceptics concerning the functionality of this device (converting nickel into copper in an exothermic "reaction"), whether it will be proven to function as advertised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer
It would be very hard to fuse hydrogen with any other element. Otherwise it would happen in space and so certain elements would be almost non-existent. Also where is the rush to duplicate the results?
There have been about 3,000 papers published in peer-reviewed journals that have shown positive results for cold fusion. Cold fusion has a 100% chance of working. I'm 50/50 on Rossi right now until more information comes out. If major news doesn't come by the end of March, it will probably drop to 5% and if nothing comes by the end of the year, I'm 100% convinced he is a fraud. The best thing to do is wait at least a few months before making a decision either way.
that' s not true. generally accepted science does not recognize cold fusion, lenr, piezonuclear reactions and things like that. There are some articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals but until now nobody has published a cold nuclear reaction in a nuclear reactions database (like the brookhaven national laboratory database for example). And in nuclear physics this matters.
Dat's what Uncle Ferd tol' the revenuers... ... but dey didn't believe him... ... an' said it was a still.
The point is that many people do not even acknowledge that it exists. Just because it is not accepted doesn't mean it isn't real. The main argument of skeptics is that it hasn't been replicated or been in any peer reviewed journals. That is not true. It has been replicated in peer reviewed journals about 3,000 times. Organizations such as NASA, Shell, and Stanford have replicated cold fusion.
look at this: it was published in 2009 in some peer reviewed journals: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007arXiv0710.5177C this is really a revolutionary research,don' t you think? unfortunately this experiment was flawed. some swedish phisycs responded with this paper: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.0623.pdf cardone and the other piezonuclearists didn' t answer (in 3 years!) so, I think this research was bs. They had already won nobel prize if it wasn' t bs. Not all the researches published in peer reviewed journals are reliable.
Cold fusion isn't impossible like many believe it to be, and it doesn't break current laws of physics. If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, prove cold fusion isn't possible. Cold fusion has been replicated in peer review 3,000 times. Most of these were by prominent institutions. Every one of those was wrong? What is the point in peer review if it could be wrong that many times? How many other things passing through peer review have been wrong? It looks like some kind of effect is occurring that produces excess heat. And what we know about chemical reactions doesn't apply to this excess heat. Don't you think we should look into it more even if it already hasn't been proven to work?
You are repeating yourself. It is not up to critics to prove something wrong, it is up to the people who support cold fusion to prove it works. As for the 3,000 peer review papers you have made that claim in this thread and asked to produce them. You have not even attempted this task so it is reasonable to assume you are talking rubbish.
There is a difference between saying cold fusion is impossible and saying there is no evidence yet that it works. Saying something is impossible is an extraordinary claim and should require extraordinary proof. Just because it hasn't been proven doesn't mean it is impossible. Human flight was once considered impossible. Since hot fusion has never demonstrated a positive gain of energy, it is impossible to get a net gain from it. Why are we spending billions of dollars on something that is impossible? No one in this thread has asked me to produce them until now. Here you go: http://www.lenr-canr.org/
Just had a look at those papers http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html. Many of them were written in the 1980s and 1990s (42 of them in 1998, 252 in the 1990s, 20 in the 1980s, 225 later). None of them I looked at say we are achieved cold fusion. Cannot even find any that were published in a journal. They were presented at some conference, that is all. I do not want to argue with you about the word impossible. That is a word I have not used in this thread. You have failed to produce what you have claimed.
Just because you can't read doesn't mean it isn't there. Did you click on the publications menu? Most of them don't say they achieved cold fusion, but many of them say excess heat was produced that cannot be explained by chemical means. Some of them also found radiation and He. Excess heat as well as radiation has been found in many experiments. Maybe you have not used the word impossible, but many mainstream scientists have and the majority of people think cold fusion or LENR is impossible. Can you at least admit that there may be something to these experiments and they should be looked into further?
Seems to me that if research of cold fusion obtained ANY replicable peer review results there would a "fusion rush" in the science, military and financial communities the likes of which we have never seen. A safe, clean, unlimited source of energy that does not require any special fuel. Energy resources are the foundation of civilization. A Mr Fusion home reactor would be so transformative that we wouldn't recognize the world it would build - technologically, socially, politically or economically.
In computing, ColdFusion is the name of a commercial rapid application development platform invented by Jeremy in earlier days. The programming language used with that platform is also commonly called ColdFusion, though is more accurately. ColdFusion was originally designed to make it easier to connect simple HTML pages to a database, by version 2 , it had become a full platform that included an IDE in addition to a scripting language. As of 2010, versions of ColdFusion (purchased by Adobe Systems in 2005) include advanced features for enterprise integration and development of rich Internet applications. find duplicate images software download iTunes converter
Cold Fusion doesn't mean you get more energy then you put into the system. Also Cold Fusion is a fact of nature, fusion doesn't occur in the sun yet cold fusion does through quantum tunneling. IF this device is indeed producing "cold fusion" the most probable cause is a statistical tunneling effect that probably has a limit. This limit probably will only allow for a relatively low efficiency.
One of the distinguishing features of ColdFusion is its associated scripting language, ColdFusion Markup Language. CF-ML compares to the scripting components of ASP, JSP, and PHP in purpose and features, but its tag syntax more closely resembles HTML, while its script syntax resembles JavaScript. "ColdFusion" is often used synonymously with "CFML" or "CFM", but there are additional CFML application servers besides ColdFusion, and ColdFusion supports programming languages other than CFML, such as server-side Action script and embedded scripts that can be written in a JavaScript-like language known as Cf Script. Originally a product of Allaire and released in July 1995, ColdFusion was developed by Jeremy Allaire. In 2001 Allaire was acquired by Macromedia, who in turn were acquired by Adobe Systems Inc in 2005. ColdFusion is most often used for data-driven websites or intranets, but can also be used to generate remote services such as SOAP web services or Flash remoting. It is especially well-suited as the server-side technology to the client-side. find duplicate images software download iTunes converter
Did not read any further. If you want to make such an abusive comment because do not expect a reasonable response.
Isn't that the same with hot fusion? We've never gotten more energy out than we have put in with hot fusion either.
