Isomers, Cold Fusion, and Antimatter, Oh My
I’ve been on a self-imposed hiatus from updating this site since I’m facing multiple magazine and book deadlines, but lately I’ve received a slew of e-mails and calls from people alerting me to an upcoming meeting in the Washington area on “advanced energetics,” something of a fancy term in this case for things that could potentially go boom.
The Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency — not an agency known for messing around with imaginary weapons — is sponsoring next week’s meeting on this topic, part of an going series that has, by coincidence, brought together a number of people and issues discussed in my book, Imaginary Weapons.
While Imaginary Weapons focused on the debate over the hafnium bomb, a theoretical weapon that would use the nuclear isomer hafnium-178m2, it also touched on the Pentagon’s interest in such exotic areas as antimatter weapons and cold fusion research.
I’m told that everyone who’s anyone in the world of (possibly) imaginary weapons will be at the meeting next week: isomer enthusiasts, anti-matter hawkers, and more than a few cold fusion researchers (going under the more acceptable nomenclature of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions).
What makes this conference fundamentally different (and great), is that rather than inviting only “believers,” the organizers, from what I understand, have really attempted to gather together everyone from the virulent skeptics to the die-hard believers and a bunch of people in between. In fact, the JASONs — the secretive group of science advisers to the Pentagon – will be taking part in a classified session, I’m told. (The JASONS, by the way, did a full report on a related area — high energy density materials – in 1997, and then another specifically on the hafnium bomb in 1999).
The man behind the meeting — a former Pentagon official involved in weapons research –was one of the true voices of reason in the hafnium bomb debate, and he apparently continues to be very even-handed, so it’ll be interesting to see what — if anything — comes out of it. I sincerely doubt it will be another hafnium bomb.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:56 am
I don’t believe in Cold Fusion - but recent experiments by the Navy using cp-39 plastic have documented that atomic particles are being given off by the paladium cells.
Clearly Something is happening. Is it fusion? Probably not fusion as we envision it.
What is it? It’s one more example of how little modern physicists actually know.
December 10th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
While the production and storage of antimatter remain major technical problems, make no mistake this is real physics and not just science fiction.
The average modern nuclear warhead at best only transfers a small amount of the nuclear material to energy from the mass of the device.
Matter-antimatter reactions are 100% efficient in the transfer of mass to energy. Even small amounts of antimatter could greatly enhance both conventional and nuclear explosives.
December 28th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Sharon:
I’m halfway thru ‘Imaginary Weapons’ and wonder why you refer to Star Wars as a program that has ended. I can assure you that it has only changed names ( your Av Week has had several articles) and gotten more focused on the near term.
Phil Kessel
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 am
Contrary to most of the existing “cold fusion” scientists, we believe that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed below. No “new physics” is involved, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not “cold fusion” and never was.
L. Larsen, Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University
“Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces”
Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006)
“Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces”
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269
“Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells”
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472
“Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces”
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059
May 28th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
paul mccartney 33…
Hi! http://oarlrolr.info/86_0.html . Thanks!…
June 26th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
hindi 94…
Hi! http://36.snzaawwb.info/14_0.html . Thanks!…
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
I would like to say some words concerning what said by the journalist Bob Weber:
“Regardless of experimental results, one needs a convincing theory of CF”
in the link:
http://www.strategykinetics.com/2006/02/cold_fusion.html
Before to understand cold fusion, we neeed to have a complete understanding of the nuclear phenomena. However we dont have it.
In the Introduction of my book QUANTUM RING THEORY, it is written in the page 4:
…………………………………………….
“Perhaps one would like to say that the foundations for cold fusion are the same of that proposed in Quantum Mechanics. Indeed, in Jan-2004 the cold fusion researcher Dr. Dimitriy Afonichev sent me an e-mail where he said the following:
‘I think that occurrence of cold fusion can be explained on the basis of the existing theories’.
Truthfully his words transmit not merely a personal opinion, because actually several theorists those try to explain the cold fusion occurrence share his viewpoint. However such opinion is very intriguing, since the own academic community is agreeing that the existing theories in the branch of Nuclear Physics are unable to explain even the ordinary nuclear properties, as confessed by Eisberg and Resnick in their book Quantum Physics, where they say in the first page of the Chapter 15:
‘Though we dispose nowadays of a sufficient complete assembly of information about the nuclear forces, we realize that they are too much complexes, not having been possible up to now to use this acknowledge for building an extensive theory of the nuclei. In other words, we cannot explain the whole properties of nuclei in function of the properties of the nuclear forces that actuate on their protons and neutrons’.
So, as the existing theories are unable to explain the nuclear properties responsible for the hot fusion occurrence (which occurs according to the principles of Quantum Mechanics), it’s hard to believe that such existing theories could explain nuclear properties that would be responsible for the occurrence of some so much complex as it is the cold fusion (which occurs by infringing the principles of QM). “
…………………………………………….
For a layman to understand easily that said in the Introduction of my book, take for instance the interaction between two neutrons.
Two neutrons have no repulsion. But in a short distance, they are attracted by the strong force. So, after interacting within a nucleus, two neutrons would have to form the 0n2, and would never separate anymore.
But 0n2 does not exist in nature. Heisenberg tried to explain it with the introduciton of the concept of Isospin. Unfortunatelly the isospin is an abstract mathematical concept.
Two neutrons tied strongly by the strong force cannot be separated by an abstract concept, because an abstract concept cannot produce a FORCE capable to win the force of attraction by the strong force.
Only a FORCE of repulsion can win the force of attraction.
A NEW NUCLEAR MODEL (that shows what is the force of repulsion between two neutrons in short distances) is proposed in my book Quantum Ring theory.
In 2002 the Infinite Energy magazine has published my paper “What is Missing in Les Case’s Catalytc Fusion” , in which I have proposed some improvements to be addopted, in order to avoid the missing of replicability.
In 2003 in the ICCF-10 Lets and Cravens exhibited their experiment, in which they have adopted the suggestions of mine in my paper published in 2002 by IE.
In my book I propose an explanation for Lets-Cravens experiment, showed in paper entitled “Lets-Cravens Experiment and the Accordion-Effect”
The Accordion-Effect is a nuclear property unknown by nuclear theorists, and it is responsible for the resonance that takes place between a nucleus (for instance Pd) and the oscillation of deuterons due to zero-point energy.
After reading some of my papers, the late Dr. Eugene Mallove said in 2004: “Guglinski has interesting and intriguing ideas”.
That’s why he suggested to put my papers on a book form, and to publish it.
However, Dr. Mallove did not read my papers concerning the new nuclear model.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:52 am
ntjamv nmiovsk tepxnzcjr gjcwhn imkj rsqgyhpwi fxnghu
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 am
Though I have walked approximately fifty feet, I believe I am the only person in the district making the transition from the first type of West Hollywood audience to the second. ,
December 14th, 2009 at 11:49 am
That’s why it is better for beginners to learn from those who have walked the path already, not those who have only theoretically walked the path whose knowledge consists of what “should” be.