|Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 22:39:03
Yes, we've seen it and it is quite valid research.
Cold fusion now has more than 600 successful experiments in multiple laboratories, as shown by Fox et al., by a large number of different scientists in different countries and at different times.
To anyone believing in the scientific method, where experiment rather than theory determines what is real and what is not, then the phenomenon of cold fusion has been clearly established and the present theory of "hot fusion only" has to be changed.
Directly related to this is also some important work going on in forefront thermodynamics. Rigorously the second law of thermodynamics is based on statistical mechanics, and the second law can be and is violated temporarily in normal transient fluctuations of proper statistical systems. There are several fluctuation theorems, and a particularly rigorous and useful one is given by D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, "Equilibrium microstates which generate second law violating steady states," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648. The theorem was further generalized by Gavin E. Crooks, "Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 60, 1999, p. 2721-2726. These theorems have been rather widely applied and successful.
What this means is that, in a transient fluctuation, the normal reactions in the system in that fluctuation zone are "running backwards" for a moment or for a short time. So normally excluded "backward interactions" can and will then occur, and negative entropy can be produced for awhile as well.
As an example, in certain solutions this transient fluctuation or reaction reversal zone can be at the cubic micron level and it can last for up to two seconds or more. For experimental proof, see G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans, "Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales," Physical Review Letters, 89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601.
By the way, in water a cubic micron would contain something on the order of 30 billion ions etc. So that is a lot of ions and charges that can "experience reversed reactions" momentarily for up to two seconds.
Let us reason together for a moment. Normally, like charges repel and unlike charges attract. But in a "reversed reaction" fluctuation zone, temporarily conditions can exist such that like charges attract and unlike charges repel! In that case, e.g., two H+ ions (which are just two free protons) do not repel but can conceivably attract, and they can attract each other so closely that each enters the strong force region of the other. That defeats the magic "coulomb barrier" which usually prevents the free protons from getting so close together that the strong force binds them. So transient fluctuations can be, and are, means of momentarily overcoming the coulomb barrier, if conditions are "just right".
Then as the reversal fluctuation turns from its departure and comes back to normal, the coulomb force is restored and the protons would normally repel again. However, the strong force in its region is stronger than the coulomb force, and it can hold those two protons together during the return to normalcy so that one quark in one of them flips its orientation, turning that proton into a neutron. Voila! That final interaction just created a residual deuterium ion D+. We have previously postulated that this is the main "cold fusion" reaction producing the excess deuterium noted in many of the experiments. Attraction of two deuterons during the "reversal zone" period could result in formation of a He4 ion, without having to even flip quarks. That's an alpha particle, and we postulated it as one of the mechanisms probably producing the excess alpha particles in so many of the successful cold fusion experiments. Three H+ ions with two quark flips would produce tritium, or a D+ ion attracting and gluing to a H+ ion with one quark flipping when the reversal zone decayed back to normal, would yield tritium also. Such interactions could thus account for the excess tritium observed in so many of the successful experiments. We posited these interactions in 1998, and of course included them in our book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, in 2002.
Note that "hot fusion" temperatures are not necessary for such reactions occurring in "reaction reversal zones" -- i.e., in known transient fluction zones of up to a cubic micron in size, and for up to two seconds.
In short, if the orthodox "hot fusion is all there is" folks will get off it and get with scientific method, and believe the experiment refuting the theory requires the theory be changed, then cold fusion could and would readily come into its own.
Note also our paper, just recently placed on the website, dealing with precursor engineering. Eventually, it will be possible to engineer forces in the nuclei and between particles as one desires, once precursor engineering is developed. In a sense, the successful cold fusion experiments are additional indicators that precursor engineering will someday become a viable engineering and the major engineering being practiced.
Have you folks seen this research:?