Originally Posted by ChickenInferno
A good example of this in my research is explaining the role of ammonium sulfate. We wash our samples 3x with water and thus due to the extreme solubility of both ions, we shouldn't theoretically have any left in our precursors. However when we fail to add ammonium sulfate, we find different end-products. Theoretically, we shouldn't have any left, but realistically it's still there and it's somehow catalyzing a high-aspect ratio growth via an unknown mechanism. The only mechanism we can think of is that is somehow stopping growth on the polar faces of the crystal structure by simply "capping" them. Hence, this is really an issue where we're not quite sure how to verify our theory besides the essential fact that with it we see high-aspect ratio and without it we see spherical particles. The theory is there but no way to verify a mechanism as of yet.
These people as alluded to before are hogwash. What I would really like to see is someway to show how much power they are putting into their system and actually see a power reading (pressure from steam or something like this) to just show that 400W in and 12000W out. Let them explain it over several years but show us this proof first.
The most open poster I've seen yet. It's actually not that rare to see science done with no explanation. A lot of science was done by random meddling, it's the best way to get results.
My favorite post from the popsci article on this:
Clay, you need to get up to date with developments in this field (!),
including some knowledge of basic physics.
Please don't call it "cold fusion". There is nothing that "fuses" in these
experiments. The term has led many researchers down a road that leads off
into the weeds. The preferred term now is LENR (Low Energy Nuclear
There is no currently accepted explanation of how excess heat is produced
in these devices. But in my view, there is indeed a plausible mechanism.
Atoms are composed of a primary mass and a secondary mass. The primary
mass is simply twice the atomic number, and the secondary mass is the
difference between the primary mass and that shown in the Periodic Table.
Tungsten, for instance, has a Z of 74 and a tablular mass of 184. Its
secondary mass is therefore 184 - 2*74 or 36 amu. This secondary mass
("excess mass", currently ascribed to neutrons) has a foreign character and
can be converted to energy by a simple, low-temperature process and can
also produce energy spontaneously through radioactivity. The primary
mass, however, is very stable and is not available for this type of conversion.
The atomic spin system is too complex to convert directly to energy. But the
conversion could occur through an intermediate such as a massless particle.
There is growing evidence, for example, that the flux of solar neutrinos
affect radioactive decay rates here on Earth. (See scripturalphysics.org/qm
There are two more massless particles that have not been discovered
experimentally, but whose existence is suggested from extending the
perodicity of the Periodic Table "backwards" (or "upwards") into the realm of
less-than-atomic (or subatomic) particles. One of these could appropriately
be called a "hydrino", but it is completely different from the hydrino of
Randell Mills. THIS hydrino and hydrogen (protium) appear to be closely
related, and may explain why hydrogen (in the form of water,
hydrocarbons, metal hydrides, H2 gas, etc.) is a key player in the LENR
I'm not going to post to their website though, I despise anything religious even if it's pushing science.
This isn't fusion as we think of fusion, apparently "cold fusion" as the old term was defined doesn't exist. I'm not saying this is real, but there are quite a few things that we know exist (or at lest we observe) but yet can't prove them or find any valid way to prove them.Edited by mushroomboy - 2/16/11 at 4:56pm