Krivit says cold fusion is not 'fusion' but LENR

A leading journalist in the field points out that what is generally referred to as cold fusion does not involve fusion but that the experiments do prove the discovery of a potentially abundant source of clean nuclear energy -- not from fusion but probably from electroweak interactions.

"I now concede that, to the best of my awareness, it's not fusion. But hang on - the experiments still prove the discovery of a potentially abundant source of clean nuclear energy, not from fusion but probably from electroweak interactions." -- Steven B. Krivit

For years I've been referring to the field of research spawned by the phenomenon first announced by Pons and Fleishmann and by Steven E. Jones 21 years ago as "cold fusion," even though I knew that there were other designations.  I though those were political -- a way to get some distance from a vilified title.

However, after reviewing Steven B. Krivit's March 20 presentation which he prepared for the American Chemical Society, it looks like I'm going to need to change my vernacular.  Krivit is a well-respected journalist in the field, editor of New Energy Times, which focuses on the subject of "Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Research, 'Cold Fusion,' and Next Generation Nuclear Power".

Krivit points out that while the phenomenon is indeed nuclear – Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) – it is not "fusion".

He humorously rated his presentation "S" for "Scientific: Contains Graphic Scientific Images and Hard Facts.  Not recommended for people who follow dogma or have fixed beliefs."

Krivit begins:

"Twenty one years ago when people started researching this field, the cold fusion people assumed that what they were seeing was some kind of modified third branch of D-D nuclear fusion."

He then points out that they did not know about electroweak interactions, which were only newly recognized in the field of physics, not chemistry, a few years earlier.

He then spends a bulk of his presentation pointing to several repeatable scientific observations that are not consistent with "fusion," but which are definitely nuclear, and which are explained easily by the neutron capture model.

• Tritium
• Low-Flux Neutrons
• Heavy Z Transmutations
• Isotopic Shifts
• Energetic Alphas
• Heat and Helium-4

Krivit also notes that the late Eugene Mallove was making this point regarding this phenomenon not being consistent with "fusion" in March of 2004, two months before he was killed and honored by the community as a foremost champion of cold fusion (in the general sense of the word).

In conclusion, Krivit argues that people who want to insist that this is a fusion event have to base their arguments on faith, not facts. "Leave faith to religion; bring science back to LENR."

Here is Krivit's presentation, which he posted to YouTube.

# # #

Links

On the Reality of LENR and the Mythology of Cold Fusion - by by Steven B. Krivit; March 20, 2010.   The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real Energy by Steven B. Krivit, Nadine Winocur (320 pages; Pacific Oaks Press; October 1, 2004)

Mentions

• "The discussion about excess heat in these reactions could be one of semantics, says Michael McKubre, of SRI International in Menlo Park, California. Presumably by this he is alluding to the controversial nature of the phrase cold fusion. He asserts that LNER is no longer an oddity. Others don't agree. One person who was once a huge devotee of cold fusion, Steve Krivit, a journalist from the magazine New Energy Times has changed his mind...." (Nature; March 22, 2010)
• "New Energy Times' Steven Krivit, who co-wrote a book titled "The Rebirth of Cold Fusion" in 2004, thinks the effect has something to do with weak nuclear interactions but now says 'it's not fusion'." (MSNBC; March 23, 2010)

Comments

Agree; It's Not Fusion

On March 22, 2010, Mark S. Coffman wrote:

It seems that the concept of neutron “formation” directly into the nucleus of atoms or composite nuclei “explains” a lot of the evidence from Cold Fusion. Is this fusion? No not really...Basically the lack of direct release of a free space neutrons, that would occur in hot nuclear reactions is not present. The quantum suppression of long range radiation happens because of a lack of neutron momentum, hence the accuracy of the LENR description.

The thing is, that after the neutron is deposited, standard hot nuclear reactions should proceed apace because of it…Basically in the form of the natural work-out of the LENR neutron injection. There’s a lot of evidence that the nuclear makeup of the Target Material plays a role in this workout. Especially what was shown by a Russian group that using carbon in the target material can cause standard ionizing radiation to be emitted. Also you have to remember that in LENR, high energies are initially being deposited in very confined spaces so that sufficient energies for standard nuclear fusion reactions might be attained in certain instances. It’s a complex situation that needs to be disentangled on the basis of nuclear physics principals and at nuclear size ranges. It is very much like what happened when scientists first bombarded the element uranium with external neutrons. They got the formations of all sorts of different isotopes with their various half lives…only later did they find out that some of the uranium reaction was a chain reaction. The full complexity of the workout from LENR/Cold Fusion is trying to tell us something.

* * * *

Where the Neutrons Go

On April 01, 2010 9:22 AM, David Thomson wrote:

Hi Sterling,

Although Krivit does a good job in debunking the “fusion” hypothesis, he does not provide an explanation for where the neutrons come from to explain neutron capture.

According to the Aether Physics Model, not only is “cold fusion” wrong, but so is “hot fusion” and both for the same reasons. It should be apparent the hot fusion theory is wrong because scientists are unable to engineer a working hot fusion reactor.

According to the APM, a process similar to Casimir effect, which occurs to electrons, also occurs with protons. Just as electrons placed in the proper magnetic orientation and distance from each other generate new electron-sized photons, magnetically aligned protons within nuclei (when separated by a quantum length) also generate proton-sized photons, which in turn may convert to protons within a nucleus. Further, the newly generated protons may bind with an electron to produce a neutron.

In effect, the fusion process is really a process of generating new matter. This is not conjecture, but is supported by hard data. The Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors generate more fuel than they consume. Richard Hull generates neutrons in his Fusor device. It is widely observed that the Universe is expanding, which is quantified by the Hubble constant. There is solid evidence the Earth, stars, and other bodies expand over time. 

Matter continually generates throughout the Universe, except of course, at the centers of galaxies and in high energy particle collisions. There, matter is destroyed. The expansion of matter in galaxies along with the contraction of matter in galactic centers cause the ubiquitous spiral motion seen in all older galaxies.

If Krivit is truly motivated by science, he should be looking into the Aether Physics Model, which is fully quantified and based upon the empirical data. As he states in his video, the theory should be formed around the data, the data should not be adjusted to the theory. He points out the *assumptions* used to promote cold fusion, and then simply assumes the neutrons will show up when needed to explain neutron capture. He trades one assumption for another.

The facts and the math both point to the generation of new matter, and this is the basis for all true “free energy” devices involving chemistry and nuclear physics. Otherwise, if the assumed conservation laws prohibited the creation and destruction of matter, then no chemical or nuclear reaction could ever result in free energy.

* * * *