Get the free FPJ Weekly Newsletter

Cold Fusion and the Energy Crisis: to be or not to be?

by Dr. Stoyan Sarg

November 30, 2012

While the year 2011 will be remembered for the remarkable progress in cold fusion achieved in Italy and more particularly by the E-cat reactors of Andrea Rossi, the year 2012 will be remembered for the slow progress of its recognition by the mainstream establishments.

Cold fusion, known also as LENR, is a new and safer type of nuclear energy that will rival the currently used unsafe nuclear power. Its advantages are unparalleled: a lack of radioactive waste and byproducts that could be used for a weapon; abundance of fuel (nickel) without the need for mining of radioactive uranium with the accompanying environmental contamination; much cheaper and scalable reactors from small to large size with the possibility of also being used as an energy source for a spaceship. The latter option is envisioned by NASA.

Nuclear energyThe presently used nuclear plants based on the uranium fission process are highly expensive installations in the range of billions of dollars. Such a high cost is driven by the special design requirements for safety and maintenance including the management of the radioactive waste. The price of nuclear energy includes not only this cost spanned for the time of active operation of the nuclear plant but also the cost of uranium mining and processing.

Nuclear energy has been commercially adopted since 1951. For the past 60 years, the amount of radioactive waste produced by all nuclear reactors on the Earth is about 225,000 metric tons and it grows by 12,000 tons per year. Such concentrated radioactive waste has not existed naturally in the Earth since the time of its creation about 4.5 billions year ago. In many nuclear plants, the radioactive waste from burned fuel rods is temporarily stored in the plant for an undetermined duration, and people are not aware of it until some nuclear accident happens. The nuclear disaster in Fukushima in 2011 was such a case.

 A question arises: Why is the new energy outside the view of energy policy makers? One of the problems is that we have an unprecedented case of a technological breakthrough that is considered impossible by main stream science. This may explain the initial denial and skepticism of the scientific establishment followed by silence in the official media. As a result, the energy policy makers continue their old way of planning and management of government funds. Apart from this, there is another no less important issue – a lot of money from interest groups is at stake.

In the era of the information superhighway we are living as in a global village, so the breakthrough in cold fusion cannot be left unnoticed. Sooner or later the new discovery will spread globally, bypassing the bureaucratic establishments. Some policy makers may expect this to happen, but they do not have the power to overcome the inertia. Nevertheless, following the voices of some scientists in favor of cold fusion, NASA hosted a LENR workshop in September 2011 at Glenn Research Center Cleveland, Ohio, where the feasibility of cold fusion and the pioneering work of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons was acknowledged for the first time, 22 years after their experiments. After so many years of denial and embarrassment, Martin Fleischmann survived to see the triumph of cold fusion technology by the E-cat reactor of Andrea Rossi, and he died on August 3, 2012. Despite the fact that the feasibility of cold fusion was recognized for the first time in a NASA workshop, this was not enough to dissolve the skepticism amongst the institutions of mainstream science.  However, some positive reactions took place. On September 16, 2011 US President Barack Obama signed a patent law reform bill that allows new technologies to be patented including cold fusion. It has been a known practice that a patent application could be refused if the physics is not explainable by the officially accepted theoretical models. The supporters of cold fusion may hope for challenging discussions at the next Annual meeting of the American Nuclear Society scheduled for June 2013 with a motto “Next Generation Nuclear Energy: Prospects and Challenge”.

One curiosity today is that while the research on cold fusion was deprived of government funding, billions of dollars have been spent and continue to flow for the expensive supercolliders in order to save the problematic Standard Model. The recent unconvincing result from the search for the elusive X boson  is a further disappointment for the supporters of the Standard Model.

During the last two decades, international scientific organizations were established by scientists who do not agree with the imposed canonized models in theoretical physics. The information highway opened the possibility for a new form of international collaboration. Today, these scientists are able to organize online workshops with a large international participation and  conferences, where new ideas can be discussed. The Natural Philosophy Alliance, established in 1988, counts thousands of members—scientists, engineers and researchers—worldwide.  Another large professional scientific organization is the Society for Scientific Exploration, founded in 1989 with a peer reviewed periodic journal JSE. The 31st Annual Meeting of this society with the motto Bonfire on the Paradigm was held on June 20-23, 2012, in Boulder, CO, USA. At this meeting the author of this article presented a talk entitled: Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the Basic Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory. The video-record of this talk is available on-line (part 1, part 2, part 3). The scientific paper is available from the physical archive http://vixra.org/abs/1112.0043.

Scientific discoveries today face a new paradigm that did not exist a century ago. The bureaucratic establishment of mainstream science is against any fundamental change, and global monetary interests hang in the balance. The search for a solution to the energy crisis today remind us of the famous phrase in Shakespeare’s Hamlet: To be, or not to be: that is the question.  The answer to this question today with respect to cold fusion is not simple.

Print Friendly

About the Author

Stoyan Sarg

Dr. Stoyan Sarg (Sargoytchev) is a Bulgarian-born Canadian. He holds an engineering diploma and a PhD in Physics in the field of space research. From 1976 to 1990 he was involved in space projects sponsored by the program Intercosmos coordinated by the former Soviet Union. He participated also in a collaborative project with the European Space Agency. For his pioneering work he was awarded medals from Intercosmos, Russia and Bulgaria. In 1990 he was invited as a visiting scientist by Cornel University and worked at the Arecibo Observatory, P.R. on a Lidar project funded by the NSF (USA). This was the place where the first SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program was operated before 1985 using the world’s largest radiotelescope – radar. In 1991 he immigrated to Canada, where he worked on projects coordinated by the Canadian Space Agency. Since 2002 he has been with York University, Toronto, Canada. He has over 80 scientific publications and a few patents related to ... More...

47 Responses to Cold Fusion and the Energy Crisis: to be or not to be?

← Older Comments

  1. jess tauber

    December 4, 2012 at 7:51 am

    Hi folks. I’ve been pursuing new ways to look at nuclear closed-shell numbers for the past couple of years, which may (or may not) impact LENR work. In a nutshell the for the anisotropic oscillator Nilsson model (an idealization ignoring spin-orbit coupling) I’ve found that these numbers are based on Pascal Triangle combinatorics. Most nuclei are ellipsoids rather than spherical, and can be defined with an axial ratio. I’ve discovered that for these idealized nuclei magic numbers are determined by double triangular number increments. If the axial ratio has y/x (polar/equatorial) then one will find y counts of every double triangular number in the running sequence of closed shell numbers. Further, distances between every x closed shell number will also be a double triangular number. I’ve also now been looking at real data, and have found other Pascal patterning in the closed-shell (magic) numbers. With spin-orbit term added things become a bit more complicated, but are equally motivated at least for spherical nuclei and neutron counts. People don’t realize just how much contention there is in the field with regards to adequacy of theoretical shell-based modeling. In any case I’m hoping that my purely mathematical findings will have bearing on LENR work in the future, for example in helping determine the best isotope ratios in fuel mixtures. The Pascal based math is also evident in the Miley data, something completely unexpected.

  2. Stephen Schweter

    December 11, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    I hope this becomes a reality,if it proves to work it will still have an uphill battle. uuless this becomes available directly to the consumer without the Gov getting in the way as they are know to do with every aspect of our lives at every level you may think of.if it isn’t made maintainable be the consumer and not done on a lease basis it would stand a chance but only if we can keep the GOV. at all levels out of the way. I do hope it is real and will be proven at some time in the near future.It does have the hope for a better future for all if done right.
    Peace to all
    Stephen Schweter

  3. Greg Goble

    December 19, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    U.S. Government Science.gov LENR Search

    http://www.science.gov/scigov/result-list/fullRecord:LENR/#ResultList=0%7C10%7C_%7CRANK%7C0

    Enjoy

  4. GreenWin

    December 21, 2012 at 9:18 am

    Lots of hilarious Kirviture in these comments. But Swedish Public Television has done their own investigation on Rossi’s e-cat and aired i Dec 17, in their program “World of Science.” Here with English subtitles…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHXc7NNMiWo&feature=youtu.be

    It appears the adhom attacks are failing dramatically with the SVT broadcast reaching 3.3 million viewers.

    • Al Potenza

      December 22, 2012 at 1:07 am

      The Swedish show is badly done. The editing is haphazard and the right questions are studiously avoided.

      What was needed was an incisive interview with Rossi asking why he has not gotten independent verification of his claims by a RELIABLE and credible third party.

      Kullander should have been asked about the missing isotopic data he promised a year ago on the copper residue he was given by Rossi.

      Defkalion should have been asked to show the 20 kilowatt tabletop reactors they claimed they had two years ago (in their forum).

      I don’t know what “ad hom” attacks you are talking about. Many so-called investigators of cold fusion make wildly optimistic claims and none has yet delivered on the iron clad proof that any of them is true. What we have is a large collection of irreproducible and vaguely described claims for a process that has never been properly demonstrated.

      The video was vague and poorly done and did not ask the right questions or interview the right people.

  5. Stoyan Sarg

    December 23, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    The Swedish movie is well done. It emphasizes on facts and arguments on both sides of the paradigm. The skepticism among the scientists who oppose the results is based on their belief that their understanding of nuclear fusion is a final true. For those who are impatient (scientists or not) the opposing argument is a third-party replication. However, Rossi may have a lesson from the case of Pons and Fleishmann that instead of initiating of officially supported research their discovery was debunked at the beginning by a poorly made third-party replication. This imposed the belief that the cold fusion is impossible and the education system was stuck on this opinion all these 23 years after that. Now the case is different because the output energy is not in watts but in kilowatts range and Rossi maybe decided to handle the initial research not disclosing the main secret. The movie showed a multiplication of E-cat reactors and if Rossi goes in this direction and sell a kilowatt system the third party replication will not be necessary.

    • Al Potenza

      December 24, 2012 at 4:00 pm

      With due respect, Dr. Sarg, the Swedish video should have asked hard questions of Rossi and Defkalion, the only two claimants of kilowatt levels of power, neither of which has given any credible proof.

      Pons and Fleischman had more than twenty years and 40 million dollars to improve on their original experiments and they never did. That’s their problem and not any so called debunking.

      Rossi can prove that his invention is real by allowing independent testing as a “black box”. That would not, as you suggest, risk his intellectual property. He has never done that. Rossi also has never sold any type of ecat to anyone who would admit buying it, much less testing it. Rossi changes his story and makes new completely incredible claims almost daily. He never delivers on ANY of them. I have no idea why you would believe anything he says.

      You have to remember that Rossi is a convicted felon and that he bilked the Department of Defense of the USA out of millions of dollars for thermo-electric devices he could never deliver and which, most likely, never existed. That’s his past history and you should consider it. His current activities are identical to those of others who turned out to be investment scams such as Steorn, convicted felons Carl Tilley and Dennis Lee, and a company called Sniffex which was closed in the USA by the FTC.

      If you have any convincing hard and independent evidence that Rossi and Defkalion claims are reasonable and real, I wish you’d let us all know. I don’t think you can.

      • TPBurnett

        December 25, 2012 at 5:28 pm

        Your a little distorted on your facts, Al Potenza.
        But on your argument about independent testing of Rossi’s black box, you have to realize that Rossi is not a scientist trying to prove something. He is an engineer trying to produce a product to sell. Proving to his competitors that he has something real is counter to good business. He only needs to prove what he has to his customer.
        On Pons and Fleischman you suggest that nothing came from 40 million in research but while Pons and Fleischman never came up with a commercially viable device they did have improvements in producing the various LENR effects. They never found that the effect was an illusion or a mistake.

  6. Angelo Perusco

    December 26, 2012 at 2:23 am

    Beaurocracy and new ideas do not play well together. Scientific process should not hinder process.

  7. ThisGuy

    December 26, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    Well done in citing the internet’s creation of high speed easy access of information for everyone.

    Cold fusion doesn’t work. It’s been tried to death in the ’50s and was abandoned in the ’90s, with a bunch of crackpots continuing to work on it without any results to this day. And the internet provides immediate access to this.

    A horrible piece of journalism that serves as nothing but to put more nonsense in the heads of a public that’s already been seduced by other forms of scientific quackery.

  8. Karl

    December 29, 2012 at 12:27 am

    Thank to Internet there is no longer possible to filter one so called truth. That’s the difference with 1989 when main stream science and media controlled everything. It’s a pity for the majority of human and species that they were so effective about debunking and delaying research in Cold Fusion.

    I discovered Stoyan theories on the Internet recently and bought his books Basic Structure Of Matter and Field Propulsion. His theories about matter and universe offer explanations to many enigmas in Quantum Mechanics theories. The furious resistance from the main stream science to Cold Fusion is understandable as the majority of them are schooled convinced the QM model is correct.

← Older Comments