VIDEOS: Reality of Cheap Clean Cold Fusion; Cheap Clean Hydrogen on Demand; & Air Car, NOW

> Other inventors in New Zealand (on a 60 Minutes programme) are presently patenting "excitated"
> water--running in UNADAPTED regular engines. Other versions, however, show anyone can make a
> Joe Cell because its basic energy physics, though definitely not exclusively thermodynamics....I
> could care less to hear the terms "orgone" or "etheric" in some of the less recommended layman's
> videos below, though I include them because nothing else I have found demonstrates the visual
> aspects more spot on than some of these.

If your best sources still have obvious pseudoscience even in their "layman's explanations," it's unlikely that their more esoteric rationales hold much weight either. The fact is, it takes exactly the same amount of energy to turn water into burnable fuel as you get back by burning the fuel.

That doesn't mean using hydrogen as alternative to gasoline or biodiesel is a bad idea, it just means you need an actual power source to get the hydrogen from the water in the first place.

You can make a video that demonstrates anything. Videos don't prove these "technologies" are legit. Repeatability, instructions that anybody can follow to build and use these devices prove the technologies are legit, if the devices work for other people.

said above: "You can make a video that demonstrates anything. Videos don't prove these "technologies" are legit. Repeatability, instructions that anybody can follow to build and use these devices prove the technologies are legit, if the devices work for other people."

This critique is inconsequential and pointless--and quite bizarre. The videos start your path to do exactly that. The medium in which you are informed about it has nothing to do with it.

Several other videos:

VIDEO: Steven B. Krivit, New Energy Times Editor, Report from ACS Chicago
44 min - Apr 8, 2007
From Cold Fusion To Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: 2007 Update Presentation by Steven B. Krivit, editor of New Energy Times, at the American Chemical Society national meeting in Chicago, Illinois on March 29, 2007. Explains why "cold fusion" was thought to be a mistake, current status of and terminology for the field, the materials science challenges, brief survey of excess heat claims, overview of [U.S. Navy's] SPAWAR CR-39 and co-deposition work, summary of nuclear ash and effects, overview of the Widom-Larsen theory. See New Energy Times  http://newenergytimes.com for more information.
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1944189360430905288

VIDEO: What Really Happened with Cold Fusion, and Why Is It Coming Back?
New Energy Institute
15 min 13 sec - Jan 6, 2007
www.newenergytimes.com
This talk was presented on Nov. 1, 2005 in San Francisco, Calif. at the International Congress on Nanotechnology by New Energy Times editor ... all » and New Energy Institute executive director, Steven B. Krivit.
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=941741942363748600

[nice image]
Real Cold Fusion
2 min - May 21, 2007 - small full starsmall full starsmall full starsmall full starsmall half star (4 ratings)
This is a working cold fusion experiment done in Japan
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFvzohuVew

VIDEO: Free Energy - Zero-Point Energy Extraction from the Quantum Vacuum
Avg: small full starsmall full starsmall full starsmall full starsmall full star 160 ratings
 http://www.teslatech.info
1 hr 10 min 32 sec - Jul 21, 2006
www.teslatech.info
Browse: zero point energy, tesla

This is Tom Valone's amazing video lecture Zero-Point Energy Extraction from the Quantum Vacuum (2004) where he gives a great overview of the various methods to extract free energy directly from the quantum vacuum to power our homes and machines.

Today we face a destabilizing dependency on irreplaceable fossil fuels which are also rapidly dwindling. A real need exists for a portable source of power that can compete with fossil fuel and its energy density. A further need exists for a fuelless source of power which, by definition, does not require re-fueling. One possible source could be zero-point energy (ZPE).

A major feasibility study by Valone's Integrity Research Institute placed its emphasis on the practical potential for ZPE energy conversion, especially in view of recent advances in nanotechnology, than in the theory. With primary reference to the works of Casimir, Pinto, Mead and Milonni, key principles for the proposed extraction of energy for useful work are identified and analyzed. These principles fall into the thermodynamic, fluidic, mechanical, and electromagnetic areas of primary, forcelike quantities that apply to all energy systems. A search of ZPE literature reveals that these principles also apply to the quantum level.
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5738531568036565057

U.S. Navy Cold Fusion Research Lab (5:30)
Added: November 01, 2006
Provided By: StevenKrivit
This video is background material for "Extraordinary Evidence," published at
 http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm on Nov. 10, 2006. This is a non-technical documentary on SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (cold fusion) research. Produced by New Energy Times, a project of New Energy Institute. Hosted by Steven B. Krivit. (more) (less)
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke_ZhgAKjhs&mode=related&search=



The press conference that started it all, history in the making:

VIDEO: March 23, 1989 Cold Fusion Press Conference at University of Utah
39 min - Feb 26, 2007
This is where it all began: the hope, hostility, shame, controversy and chaos. After an unsuccessful negotiation with Steven E. Jones at Brigham Young University on March 6, feeling their backs against the wall, and suspicious that Jones was trying to claim patent and intellectual priority on the fruits of their labor, Fleischmann, Pons, the University of Utah administrators and their attorneys secretly made plans to go public with their claim as soon as possible. When they learned that their paper had been accepted for publication in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, they hastily scheduled this press conference for the next day.
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5820042344911746802

Most of the so called "disproving" is known to be scientific fraud or scientific ignorance, the latter, since this is outside the specializations of both chemists and physicists: quantum electrodynamics.

However, the more open example of scientific fraud occurred in the Department of Energy as well as the physicists at MIT (who had the hot fusion contracts and stood to loose hundreds of millions in 'hot fusion' physics contracts--since chemists were doing what the physicists were unable to do, and the chemists were doing it for pennies. They were hardly a non-biased source of information. Moreover, their experiments did find the cold fusion effect, though they altered the data to preserve their hot fusion contracts That led to MIT's Eugene Mallove's resignation in disgust to see his fellow scientists play politics and intentionally defraud the world when they had seen the effect as well. Mallove became a champion of the effect for the rest of his life. Though you can find that out for yourself in the videos above.

You do get "nuclear ash" without radiation:
[1] tritium levels raised,
[2] as well as hydrogen and oxygen,
[3] and a TREMENDOUS amount of heat--far more than you put in, showing that something besides thermodynamics is occurring.
[4] and you get fusion byproducts, like helium--all from a chemical reaction under certain electrochemical situations.
[5] it's an interesting finky reaction, meaning all the variables of it have hardly been nailed down yet. That's what is fascinating. It's a frontier of science.
[6] sometimes like the Hutchinson effect, you get virtual alchemy: the invention of many higher level atoms and atomic transmutations start appearing out of the water/fusion process besides helium!

I'm mixing and matching "zero point energy" and "cold fusion" videos because I think they are the same effect (I have a background in chemistry), particularly given the interesting note that sonic cavitation experiments creates tiny vacuums that collapse and when they do (in one video documentary) you can get the same effect as cold fusion (i.e., fusion byproducts, with sonics instead of electricity--that seems zero point energy related to the cold fusion effect)!

Sort it out for yourself, though the effects are tangibly and physically real. This is still a nascent science, and there are several theories floating about attempting to explain it, though the issue is hardly that it fails to occur. The issue is what theory (or theories, if there are several different paths to the same effect) explains all the different cases.

It would seem that tweaking the same electrochemistry pathway can get you either cold fusion (with nuclear reactions without radiation, yielding tritium, helium, and massive heat--sometimes other fusion byproducts besides helium) and/or tweaking it another way gets you only zero point excitation in water (still an non-thermodyamic origin of a lot of extra heat, though in this way, without fusion byproducts). That may explain the spotty issues with cold fusion experiments, as well as an insight into how how both ZPE and cold fusion effects and particular the Hutchinson metals transmutation effects, under mere sonics--may all be highly interrelated to zero point energy 'use' being pulled into subatomic reactions and chemical reactions here.

Some videos do mention overview books you might read. "Though the videos are free, and so is the call."

I threw in the air car to show that there are a plurality of choices to escape from oil, NOW. The other water cars show that you could escape from oil that way as well. Denny Klein demonstrated his water car to Congress. COMPLETE Silence AFTER THAT. Ask your Congresscritter about that.

Cold fusion had been ****known for generations,*** though chemists Pons and Fleishmann (and physicist Dr. Stephen Jones who was their DOE reviewer who 'scooped' some of their work), were all working on it by the 1980s.

History

Early work

The idea that palladium or titanium might catalyze fusion stems from the special ability of these metals to absorb large quantities of hydrogen [in its metal lattice, holding hydrogen atoms apart singularly though close together] (including its deuterium isotope). ***The hydrogen or deuterium disassociate with the respective positive ions, but remain in an anomalously mobile state inside the metal lattice,*** exhibiting rapid diffusion and high electrical conductivity. ***The special ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen was recognized in the nineteenth century by Thomas Graham.***[45]

In 1926, two German scientists, F. Paneth and K. Peters, reported the transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis when hydrogen is absorbed by finely divided palladium at room temperature.[46] These authors later retracted their report, acknowledging that the helium they measured was due to background from the air.

A year later, Swedish scientist J. Tandberg said that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an electrolytic cell with palladium electrodes. On the basis of his work, he applied for a Swedish patent for "a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy". After deuterium was discovered in 1932, Tandberg continued his experiments with heavy water. Due to Paneth and Peters' retraction, Tandberg's patent application was eventually denied.

Events leading to the announcement

In the 1960s, Fleischmann and his team started investigating the possibility that chemical means could influence nuclear processes. Quantum mechanics says that this is not possible, and he started research projects to illustrate inconsistencies of quantum mechanics, and the need to use quantum electrodynamics instead. By 1983, he had experimental evidence leading him to think that condensed phase systems developed coherent structures up to 1000 Ångström in size, which are best explained by quantum electrodynamics. Impressed by the observation of "cold explosion" by Percy Williams Bridgman in the 30's, his team went on to study the possibility that nuclear processes would develop in such coherent structures.[47]

In 1988, Fleischmann and Pons applied to the US Department of Energy for funding for a larger series of experiments; up to this point they had been running their experiments "out-of-pocket."

The grant proposal was turned over to several people for peer review, including Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University. Jones had worked on muon-catalyzed fusion for some time, and had written an article on the topic entitled Cold Nuclear Fusion that had been published in Scientific American in July 1987. He then turned his attention to the problem of fusion in high-pressure environments, believing it could explain the fact that the interior temperature of the Earth was hotter than could be explained without nuclear reactions, and by unusually high concentrations of helium-3 around volcanoes that implied some sort of nuclear reaction within. At first he worked with diamond anvils on what he referred to as piezonuclear fusion, but then moved to electrolytic cells similar to those being worked on by Fleischmann and Pons. In order to characterize the reactions, Jones had spent considerable time designing and building a neutron counter, one able to accurately measure the tiny numbers of neutrons being produced in his experiments. His team got 'tantalizingly positive' results early January 1989, and they decided in early February to publish their results.

[This is the key dynamic that led to the press conference, though their accounts of March 6 differ.]

Both teams were in Utah, and met on several occasions to discuss sharing work and techniques. During this time, [CHEMISTS] Fleischmann and Pons described their experiments as generating considerable "excess energy", which could not be explained by chemical reactions alone. If this were true, their device would have considerable commercial value, and should be protected by patents.

[PHYSICIST] Jones was measuring neutron flux instead, and seems to have considered it primarily of scientific interest, not commercial.

In order to avoid problems in the future, the teams apparently agreed to simultaneously publish their results, ***although their accounts of their March 6 meeting differ.***

In mid-March, both teams were ready to publish, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at the airport on the 24th to send their papers at the exact same time to Nature by FedEx. However Fleischmann and Pons broke that apparent agreement [if it really ever existed] - they submitted a paper to [a different journal] the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on the 11th, and they disclosed their work in the press conference the day before. [X, actually it was the day after it was accepted.] Jones, apparently furious at being "scooped", [though it was Pons and Fleishman who insist that Jones was scooping them potentially] faxed in his paper to Nature as soon as he saw the press announcements.[48]

Reactions to the announcement

The press reported the experiments widely, and it was on the front-page of most newspapers around the world. The immense beneficial implications of the Utah experiments, if they were correct, and the ready availability of the required equipment, led scientists around the world to attempt to repeat the experiments within hours of the announcement.

---

And they did find it on most occasions. Then all hell broke loose to kill it politically, [1] because it endangered hot fusion contracts that had failed for 50 years though took billions of dollars off the public purse. Instead chemists got what they physicists had been attempted to do with a tabletop non-radioactive set up that was far more commercial in potential and far cheaper. [2] The oil companies hated it as well. And corrupt science mixed with the oil companies money is hardly a friendly environment in which to conduct the search for knowledge--particularly if that knowledge would kill off polluting oil industries. Cold fusion/zero point energy stands to alleviante human pollution issues caused by both coal and oil, helping to alleviate concerns about global warming and carbon dioxide pollution from oil/coal, since oil and coal become superfluous energy sources and small in their energy output compared to cold fusion. Cold fusion is an infinitely clean source of power, compared to coal and oil, and far cheaper. [3] Another factor is that there is a stupid hatred of physicists for chemists, and visa versa. This is a quantum electrodynamics effect, requiring knowledge of both and very few scientists are qualified and are basically ignorant of the effects of interaction. So the specialization of the scientists cripple work on this, as it generates people poorly equipped intellectually to do this work. It's a frontier area. Though the effect is there.

Have fun you undergrad chemists and physicists out there. Be nice to one another. You require each other to learn about this. ;-)

Look, when you get a flame burning underwater, far above thermodynamic inputs, you should find out how it occurs:

What's inconsequential and pointless is the same stuff getting regurgitated the same way year after year. If the pseudoscience fan reposting this noise actually has a magic engine running in his house, he's free to say so, or better yet, put it in a vehicle and drive it around the streets of Portland. If not, then the materials he's so fond of promoting don't seem to be a "path" that leads to anything real.

Watch the videos, Mr. Rice. Any relation to Condoleeza, ex-Board Member of Chevron are you?

The point is that there is endemic corporate oil money bias in the scientific process and in the media that selectively funds or covers what will allow the oil money to remain in power--while dishonestly trashes alternatives that work.

Someone else posted Vederman's list of repressed technologies above, which is a good read to show it does occur.

As said above, the best revenge is indeed that it works and the physical output: nuclear ash products (tritium, massive heat, helium) though without radioactivity.

Forget 'reforming' the oily Democrats or Republicans. They are your jailers. Remove their clientelistic power over you materially with anything mentioned above, and you are on your way to more freedom through more choices, and a better America.