Experimental Science to the Rescue: 9/11, Cold Fusion, now Alt-Energy
When I jumped into the ring to study 9/11 events in early 2005, I found that there were numerous wild and even conflicting claims. It was the “wild, wild west.” Some were saying that no planes hit the WTC Towers at all, and some said (in 2005 or soon thereafter) an energy beam from space knocked the Towers down. There were NO published peer-reviewed scientific papers in the field. To make a long story VERY short, this confused situation changed via experimental data and peer-reviewed papers published by Kevin Ryan, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Frank Legge, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, James Gourley, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Tony Szamboti, and myself and others. Now the science of 9/11 and the use of pyrotechnics/explosives is on firm experimental footing and serious challengers to our papers will need to find a way to publish peer-reviewed papers of their own (in established journals preferably) if they can. (They have not done so.) That's how science works-- peer-reviewed published papers stand until challenged by another peer-reviewed paper. This has been the pattern for scientific progress for over 300 years, since Isaac Newton.
In a parallel way, experimental science came to the rescue when there were conflicting claims regarding Cold Fusion back in 1989. Unless you were on another planet or too young, you will recall the fervor generated by claims of working water-heaters by means of d-d fusion in metals by two chemists, P&F. They claimed “excess heat” production without neutron production via d-d fusion. I was thrown into the middle of the fray because a team (which I headed) claimed a MUCH smaller effect, but again involving d-d fusion in metals, with certain metals facilitating fusion better than other metals. Our paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal NATURE in April 1989; P&F withdrew their paper which they had submitted to the same journal about the same time.
Our claims were put on solid footing when the “BYU-level” cold-fusion effect was made 100% reproducible by experiments in Japan and Europe, along with the use of state-of-the-art equipment (which we also used). Replication is the heart of science. The best metal for catalyzing cold fusion found so far is a lithium-palladium alloy. A brief summary can be found here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
There is yet another important field – one that relates to both 9/11 and to energy IMO – that is now in a “wild, wild west” condition. This is the field of alternate, non-conventional energy. Achieving a clean cheap and non-conventional form of energy might very well undercut the move towards centralization (some call it the "New World Order"); by taking control of energy sources (mostly fossil fuels) out of the hands of the wealthy elite and putting it into homes and communities worldwide. That is the expressed goal of a number of researchers in this clean-energy field.
Examples in this field include claims of energy generation by: Bedini motors, Marks TPU devices, Joule Thief circuits, variations on cold fusion (often called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, LENR) and HHO generators. Getting more power out than the electrical power one puts in to initiate things is called “overunity” – there are NO published peer-reviewed papers claiming overunity at this time. Further, there are at least two prizes for the successful achievement of overunity that have been around for years, and neither has yet been claimed, showing that the research is not yet mature. (See, e.g., http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2157.435 )
As with 9/11 and cold fusion researches, I'm trying to bring the scientific method including experiments using state-of-the-art equipment to find out what's really going on here, and to contribute if I can to the goal of achieving cheap, local clean energy. In recent months, I have done tests using advanced techniques to evaluate input and output power -- experiments that suggest there MAY be a previously-untapped source of energy here. (I still believe in the law of Conservation of Mass-Energy!) I'm trying once again to bring “rigor without rancor”.
Prof. Harrit recently asked me about the claims of heat-production via proton-Nickel “cold fusion” by Rossi and Focardi in Italy. Below is an abbreviated version of my response, which is also a challenge to the “inventors” to do serious experiments and to publish those results. First the claim (by Focardi): “Here’s what’s going on: there, in the container, we have nickel and hydrogen, then we heat up the system. Then, let’s say, the hydrogen nuclei, which are protons, move inside the system and these protons are able to come into contact with the nickel, with the atom, penetrate into the atom and even into its nucleus. So, when the proton penetrates into the nickel nucleus, nickel is turned into copper...” – Focardi, http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/sergio-focardi-father-of-ni-h-cold.html
Adding a proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi will produce Copper isotopes, predominately Cu-59 and Cu-61, since the predominate isotopes of nickel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (26.2%). Both Cu-59 and Cu-61 are highly radioactive and easily detectable. And detecting their presence via decay products would conclusively demonstrate the occurrence of the proton-capture reaction on Nickel. I challenge Rossi et al. to make quantitative measurements to demonstrate the proton-Nickel reaction they claim. I would use a gamma-ray detector; detailed gamma spectra from the decay of Cu-59 and Cu-61 are given in this reference: http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/
Cu-59 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-59%20EC Half life: 81.5 s – short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not.
Cu-61 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-61%20EC Half life: 3.33 hrs, also short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not
Edit 31 May 2011: Replication of my test circuit by Chris; see comment below; schematic diagram as he drew it, attached.