|
⇐ Previous Article — Table of Contents — Next Article ⇒
New Energy Times home page
2. Letters to the Editor
To the editor:
I heard about cold fusion as a physics student at Temple University in Philadelphia, Penn., in 1989. Then, I heard it was not true.
In 2003, Bob Dobbs, a student of Marshall McLuhan and McLuhan's archivist after he died, told me cold fusion was real. I checked it out and was surprised that it was real and that scientists had been working on it since that initial press conference.
Then, I didn't think about it because I got bogged down in work at my full-time community college math teaching job. I am also a musician and ended up playing and rehearsing instead of keeping up on the science.
Last year, while I was watching the CBS “60 Minutes” program, I got excited again. Currently, James Martinez is having cold fusion scientists and others supporting cold fusion on his internet radio show.
I am disgusted and horrified at the petroleum industry and am determined to support LENR/cold fusion with James. We have started http://www.coldfusionnow.org/ as a place where we can educate newcomers to the new energy world.
We are not scientists but artists, musicians, teachers, and regular people who want to see a clean and safe energy source. We want nothing less than to change the planetary paradigm.
I can't imagine what it must be like to work in obscurity for so long. Hats off to you, sir.
From your Web site and Youtube channel, I get the impression you don't care for the "cold fusion" moniker. I hope you're not too mad at us for saying cold fusion as opposed to LENR or CANR or something else; it's just the name that's stuck, and we're going with it. Whatever the technicality, whatever the actual reactions that are occurring, we aim to start making this LENR/CANR/cold fusion research meme more prevalent in the public's mind.
It is the nature of the digital age that ideas travel at the speed of light. If Youtube can make stars out of people in the time it takes to upload a video, why not cold fusion?
Perhaps you can contact James at the Web site above. I know he would want to interview you on the show. There are several projects in the works that altogether will move this issue to mainstream acceptance. I am cc'ing him with this message, as well.
Thank you for all you've done. I hope we can help to support you and all the scientists working in this area.
Kind regards,
Ruby Carter, California
[The Editor replies:]
Dear Ruby,
It is thanks to grassroots efforts of people like you, with optimism, open-mindedness and desire for better energy alternatives that have sustained the LENR researchers for 21 years.
I wish you and James the greatest success with your endeavors.
Steven B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times
To the Editor,
First, let me congratulate you on your intrepid and continuing coverage of the LENR. Your disappointment with the McKubre et al. claims should not daunt your enthusiasm for LENR.
Nine years ago, I became interested in LENR and have maintained a continuing but sporadic interest, which is, in great measure, due to your reporting in the field and the excellent service that you provide in New Energy Times, along with the work of Rothwell in the LENR-CANR.org Web site. These resources allow me to take an armchair approach to study the phenomena.
My first entry into the field came indirectly from Hal Fox and his CD-ROM from the Fusion Information Center Inc., “The Science of the Future Began Yesterday,” and has continued to this day with help from Eugene Mallove, Steven Krivit, and company.
As far as I am concerned, the focal point for LENR should be in the transmutation of elements. I have attached an old personal note, which I prepared as a record of my observations back in 2001. I did share this note with George Miley, and he was complimentary of my efforts and commented that I displayed unusual insight for an individual outside of the LENR field.
My continuing investigations as an armchair layman dealt mostly with the mechanisms by which a neutron could be created in an (e,p) reaction, and this has been exciting and frustrating. The big breakthrough came with the Widom-Larsen Theory, which I find most compelling in spite of the fact that I am woefully inept at understanding the weak-interaction physics/mathematics of the Standard Model.
Widom-Larsen provides an excellent mechanism for thermally mediating the neutron-capture gammas through heavy electron scattering of the gamma flux and is reminiscent of the arguments that Julian Schwinger made for thermalization through phonon interactions.
Unfortunately, the surface plasmon polariton (SPP) physics is even more daunting than anything I have previously considered, and I guess that I’ll have to leave this to the experts for the time being.
In spite of the age of the attached note, I hope that you will find it of interest and note that the transmutation phenomenon has been the primary driver behind my interest for the past decade.
With best regards,
F. Truman Williams
Albuquerque, New Mexico
[Ed: Readers can find Williams' fascinating letter here: The Alchemist's Dream Revisited ]
To the Editor:
Congratulations on your wonderful and balanced article in the Journal of Environmental Monitoring. It is intriguing that we still do not have a solid theoretical explanation but a lot of anomalous results that may be or may not be connected.
In 2004, NASA published (on its Web site) some very intriguing short videos of the gamma flashes that come from the earth atmosphere (or the earth itself), measured by one of their satellites. The gamma flashes have a very high energy and could only be explained by the idea that electrons were speeded up to super-relativistic speed.
Natural processes seem to occur from room-temperature conditions where electrons cause enormous energetic effects either on microscale (in all LENR experiments) or on a meso or macroscale like ball-lightning or earth gamma flashes.
Somehow, the systems, in all cases, get charged gradually, then burst into a large quantity of energy in a very brief period. In the case of LENR, there is an increasing body of evidence that somehow the output energy is greater that the input of electric energy, without a clear explanation of the source of this surplus.
One of the main questions around LENR may be, Where is the energy of the electrons that are put in the systems building up before the anomaly starts? Probably on the microscopic or even lower level. Also, in what form does it come out? We know that excess heat is coming out, and we have indications of all kind of elementary transmutations, but we are not sure whether this is a primary or a secondary product. What is intriguing with LENR is that the loading time for the first event is very long and that, after loading, some chain reaction seems to occur.
So where do the electrons gather in a specific formation to cause some very brief event giving the energy output? Is it possible that they create an "electron bubble" that collapses somewhere near or in the cathode? Moreover, is there bubble formation at the cathodes when LENR takes place, and has anyone done "photon" measurement (in a very wide spectrum) of the cathode during LENR? Does LENR produce sound (also wide-spectrum, or does it get influenced by ultra-sound?)?
Perhaps this is already in the literature somewhere. If so I would appreciate some leads.
Finally, I also have one criticism of your article, which deals with your optimism that LENR will substantially contribute to the solution of the energy problem. It may be that for some purposes it may be very useful, but I am very skeptical on the large-scale use because of the need for specific rare materials. So I cannot share the optimism in the conclusions of your article. Nevertheless, I believe that investigating the anomalies in more depth may lead to very interesting results and probable useful devices.
Victor van Rij
Den Haag, Netherlands
[The Editor replies:]
Dear Victor,
Thank you for your very thoughtful and interesting letter.
I understand your concern about LENR being restricted to rare materials. However, I believe this is a myth. Please see our articles Deuterium and Palladium Not Required and Piantelli-Focardi Publication and Replication Path.
Steven B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times
⇐ Previous Article — Table of Contents — Next Article ⇒
| 