This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links

390) Conspiracy or Defence?

Ludwik Kowalski

Montclair State University, New Jersey, USA
March 15, 2010


1) This unit is a continuation of what was recorded at the end of Unit #388 My private message to Dr. R. M. Santilli was shown in that unit. This morning I received the reply with the link to the newer version of his paper. Also provided is the link to his cosmological paper. My background in cosmology (general relativity, gravity, etc.) is too limited and will probably focus on his first paper. Santilli informed me that this paper has just been “accepted by a reputable refereed journal. The new title is: “Experimental Confirmation of the Novel \ Intermediate Controlled Nuclear Fusion Without Harmful Radiations.” the title of the rejected paper was “Apparent confirmation of Don Borghi’s experiment on the laboratory synthesis of neutrons from protons and electrons.”

2) Responding to Santilli I wrote: “My intention, as I wrote to you yesterday is to focus on what you call politics in science. Quoting rejection letters from editors of three mainstream journals (or quoting your descriptions of these letters) would be an essential part of the note I plan to publish. That is why I would like to have this input before starting to compose anything.”

3)
Two versions of the paper do not seem to be very different, as far as the basic claim is concerned. The described setups are said to synthesize neutrons from protons and electrons. What a coincidence, the same claim was made in Perreault’s paper. The author thinks that 12B is produced when 12C is bombarded by electrons whose energy is several hundred keV. This implies that an electron and a proton fuse to produce a neutron, inside the 12C nucleus. That 2006 paper is in my unit #389. If I were a referee I would suggest the rejection of the paper, unless it were totally rewritten. Eight critical comments were made in my fictitious referee report.

My overall impression was that the article was a joke written by an incompetent author. Santilli, on the other hand, is a Ph.D.-level nuclear physicists and the author of many publications. I am ready to start reading his paper carefully, first the rejected 2008 version and then the accepted 2009 version. This time I will pretend being a reviewer, rather than a referee. This will also allow me to make comments. Will they be the same as those I made addressing Perreault? This remains to be seen.

4) On 3/20/2010 Ludwik posted the following blue message (3/20/2010) on the pivate forum for CMNS researchers. That was about 24 hours ago. No one responded. Others are probably also not satisfied with absence of clarity combined with the unusual format of Santilli’s paper.
“Dear all,

A)
Three recent CMNS claims were:

(a) Rossi’s patent (converting nickel into copper in order to heat a factory)
(b) Parreault’s article (converting carbon into boron in order to heat homes)
(c) Santilli paper  (turning protons into neutrons and getting energy from decaying neutrons)

As recorded in my unit 388

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/388amplifier.html

The claim (a) does not belong to the realm of science; it belongs to the realm of patents where claims are validated on the basis of honest commercial successes, i.e. on large numbers of satisfied customers.

B)
All who commented on claim (b) think that the article is not credible. It contains several indicators of poor familiarity with science. I suspect the article is a joke, as described in my unit 389. And what about the claim (c); it has also been mentioned at the end of my unit 288. The author’s credentials are very impressive and I contacted him. I wrote:


“This message is prompted by your three-times-rejected 2008 article. In the abstract it you wrote: ‘We report measurements, necessarily preliminary due to their novelty, toward the laboratory synthesis of the neutron from protons and electrons, in the hope that they are not judged via theoretical conjectures, but subjected instead to independent re-runs for their verification or denial, said process being requested by possible new clean energies so much needed by our increasing environmental problems. (NOTE:This paper was rejected by Physics Letters, Il Nuovo Cimento and Physical Review Letters with ”reviews” solely based on theoretical theologies that can only be qualified as being scientifically pathetic.) ’

Rejecting experimental results conflicting with accepted theories is a disease that might kill science. I anticipate writing a short note on that subject; your case can be used as illustration. That is why I would very much like to know how the editors of the three mainstream journals explain rejections of your manuscript.

Ideally, I would like to quote their rejections. But that is a delicate matter; I would probably need permissions to quote etc. Equally useful would be your descriptions of the contents of these letters, provided I can quote your "personal e-mail information."

C) Dr. Sallini sent me a new  version of his paper; it has just been accepted for publication in a reputable referee journal. But he did not send me what I asked for. In the next message he gave me permission to share the accepted version of the manuscript with others. But neither rejection letters nor paraphrasing were sent to me. I asked again but my third message was not answered. That was the end of our correspondence.

D) The manuscript that was rejected three times can be downloaded from:

http://www.i-b-r.org/NeutronSynthesisNCA-I.pdf

the recently accepted  manuscript can be downloaded from

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/ICNF.pdf

The contents are very different. Let me comment on what I read. One thing became clear to me at once; these two manuscripts are poorly written; I would certainly sent them back to the author, asking for more clarity. That is what the editors probably did. The most annoying is constant mixing of experimental facts with theoretical conclusions. Presenting experimental facts in the form of reports from analytical laboratories is not consistent with common practice. I am not going to list numerous shortcomings of each article; the bottom line is that the articles are very difficult to read with understanding.

E) The apparatus used by Scallini consisted of an electric discharge chamber filled with hydrogen, at a pressure of several atmospheres. Two tungsten rods, facing each other, were introduced into the chamber, in order to create the arc. In one case the gauge pressure was about 2 atm, the distance between the tungsten tips was 0.125,” and the current was 30 A. The arc duration, in that case, was 3 seconds. Presence of neutrons and gamma rays was demonstrated by using several kinds of commercial detectors.

The author reminds us that “the neutron synthesis requires 0.78 MeV over the sum of the rest energies of the proton and of the electron. Where does this energy come from? At Point 3, in Section 5, Santelli speculates that the 0.78 MeV of energy, needed to turn a proton into a neutron, “originates from the aether as a universal substratum with very high energy density.” That speculation is not repeated in the new version of Santelli's article. Both articles, however, refer to the so-called “Standard Hydronic Theory.” Unfortunately, I am not familiar with that theory; it was developed by Santilli.

F) The second version of Santilli article is not limited to production of neutrons from protons. Section 4, for example, describes experiments in which nitrogen was produced from deuterium and carbon.”


Added on 3/23/2010
Responding to the above, one CMNS researcher, Dr. Dean Sinclair, wrote to me in private:

*) About Rossi, My work would say that his idea is not beyond the realm of possibility" however, I suspect that his results are actually H:H to D,  Probably through an HHH+ unit. 

*) As to Perrault's Carbon to Boron, the only Carbon to Boron transform that I can see off the top of my head is C-11 to B-11, and I can't see where the C-11 source would come from. 

To me, the most interesting is Santilli's work. 

*) I suspect that Santilli is correct that he is producing neutrons as he is creating a SHOCK WAVE.
 I agree with his comments about "Aether" involvement as I don't think that he is synthesizing them from electrons and protons: By  my work, he is literally creating them from  the usually overlooked Null Set that is part of any unit. I shall explain. 

  Possibly  the most controversial aspect of my work is my opinion that "annihilation" and "pair production" are  symmetrically reversed processes and indicate the presence of a  ubiquitous combination unit which I call the "zerotron," a unit which is SHOCK WAVE DEFORMABLE TO A NEUTRON.!

In terms of my theorizing, I'd say Santini's work is probably valid; but, not exactly as he anticipated. 

This website contains other cold fusion items.
Click to see the list of links