Excellent... If this can happen (I mean really happen, in a reliable, semi-portable size), oil will become a worthless filler.
THINK about it. Absolutely amazing... |
| |
Written By:
Scott
URL:
http://
|
oil will become a worthless filler. Not quite. Still useful for plastics and other things. |
| |
Written By:
Mark A. Flacy
URL:
http://
|
Interesting, but wake up me when:
A) Those other institutions HAVE verified and reproduced their results and
B) The technique is found to work on a -usable- scale. There are plenty of nifty reactions (physical, chemical, etc) that don’t scale well.
|
| |
Written By:
Lysenko
URL:
http://
|
meh. i remember back in houstion when the UH prof announced he’d found a way to allow superconductivity at temps above absolute zero. much hoopla; wild speculative scenarios about how we’d have energy coming out our ears; serious nods of agreement that this would soon change everything. ("electric cars! electric streets! ray guns!") this was.....geez....back in the late ’80’s, maybe? early 90’s?
and now i’m buying a gallon of gas for $3.50, and my electric bills this summer will top $400 a month. in other parts of the country, there’ll be rolling brownouts. here: in america. not uzbekistan or zimbabwe.
so i’m a tad skeptical on this one. |
| |
Written By:
bloodrage bob
URL:
http://
|
|
Maybe, maybe not. The trick is sustaining the reaction and getting more energy out than you put in. Being able to turning lead into gold would be cool, but not at $1,000 a gram. |
| |
Written By:
Jay Evans
URL:
http://
|
It will be most interesting to see if the SPAWAR work can be replicated. If so, you can be sure you’ll hear about it from us first.
Bennett Daviss’ article in New Scientist on May 3 is a follow-up piece to the in-depth article on the SPAWAR San Diego research by Steven Krivit and Daviss published in New Energy Times in November.
Apparently, New Scientist chose to neglect the term "low energy nuclear reactions," which those of us observing, and working in the field have now adopted.
The term "cold fusion" was never chosen by Fleischmann and Pons; it was wished on them by the press. It was and is a poor descriptor for the phenomenon. The concept of fusion remains highly speculative, a variety of phenomena are clearly not fusion, and then there is the Widom-Larsen not-fusion theory. (http://www.newenergytimes.com/wltheory)
Related New Energy Times stories:
Report on the 2006 Naval Science and Technology Partnership Conference (Sept. 10, 2006) (http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET18.htm#FROM...
Extraordinary Evidence (Nov. 10, 2006) (http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET19.htm#ee)
Extraordinary Courage: Report on Some LENR Presentations at the 2007 American Physical Society Meeting (March 16, 2007) (http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET21.htm#apsr...
Charged Particles for Dummies: A Conversation With Lawrence P.G. Forsley (May 10, 2007) (http://newenergytimes.com/news/2007/NET22.htm)
Steven Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times
|
| |
Written By:
Steven B. Krivit
URL:
http://newenergytimes.com
|
