Research Suggests Proton Smaller Than Previously Believed

The journal Science is reporting about new research that suggests that the proton is about 4 per cent smaller than previously believed — which upsets physicists’ currently accepted understanding of how light and matter behave.

Aldo Antognini, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Zurich used a technique using laser spectroscopy to examine the charge radius of a hydrogen atom and came up with the new proton measurement.

While a small adjustment in the estimated the size of a tiny particle may not seem enormously significant to the average person, this new finding, which actually confirms research reported three years ago by Antognini’s team, has some physicists stumped as to what might be going on, and what this all means.

I’m not sure whether this observation has a bearing on LENR (readers here may have an opinion about that), but it’s an indication that settled science may not be entirely settled, and there could well be more going on within hydrogen reactions than is currently believed.

More information on the experiment can be found here.

  • Roger Bird

    Of course, this assumes that the size of the proton did not change, like perhaps we did not just float in or out of a more or less dense region of dark energy or dark matter. Just speculating. When something this big (excuse the play of words) happens, anything could be the cause.

  • Joannes Van den Bogaert

    The radius of the proton cannot be independent of the translational speed (see theory of special relativity).
    An adequate equation for calculating the proton radius and proton mass at zero translational speed is given in Belgian Patent BE1002781 (pages 3-4) translated into English on e-Cat Site in the article “Belgian LANR Patents”. From that equation may be derived the nature of electrical charge (p) being dependent on mass (m) and radius (r) of spin (angular momentum) of a Fermi particle.

  • Joannes Van den Bogaert

    To people concerned with “col fusion”,

    Please look at e-Cat Site the article “cold fusion catalyst”. Look also at “Belgian LANR Patents” and the possibilities of nuclear fusion of deuterium in deuterated metal particles by Coulomb explosion.

  • Hugo

    ‘SIGNATURES NEEDED BY FEBRUARY 25, 2013 TO REACH GOAL OF 100,000
    TOTAL SIGNATURES ON THIS PETITION 124

    How do we spread the Word !!! Can someone help.’

    This is a ridiculous petition. It claims (quote) In fact, several small companies founded by researchers claim to be very close to having LENR devices ready to go to market. (end quote) and then goes on to beg for research in this area. If these several small companies (I can only assume they mean Rossi, Defkalion and so on) really are close to having something ready to go to market, government funding in order to catch up would be a colossal waste of taxpayer’s money.

    • Peter_Roe

      My feeling is that the less that politicians like Obama become involved, the better.

  • Zaghlool

    “Well, it is impossible to understand perfectly all the secrets of the nature around us. Our brains and thoughts are very modest compared to the greatness of the creator.” – Zaghlool.
    This phrase is Zaghlool’s Trade Mark.

  • Christian Treczoks

    I remember one or two other recent publications on the size of the proton, leading to just another size altogether. With several different results, each clearly outside the other results margin of error, one might question what exactly they are measuring.

    As the scientist do not take a proton, hold it next to a ruler and say “Oh, looki, it is 1.7fm in diameter!”, they have to measure the diameter by indirect means.

    And this is where the trouble starts. Obviously, different paths lead to different results. Maybe the notion of “diameter” is not applicable to the object “proton” at all, as all they can measure just leads to an interpretation they call a “diameter”.

    Maybe some experiments measure some parameter related to the valence quarks, other means measure parameters of the gluon portion of the proton, and another group measures the quark/antiquark aspects, thus getting different values.

    I’m not convinced that a proton is a “ball shaped thingy” – even the notion “shape” might be a wrog word altogether when it comes to subartomic particles. And if the classic “shape” is no fitting property, “diameter” is neither.

    • georgehants

      I think it is just Wonderful that science is working openly toward an understanding of a very difficult subject.
      One can expect many “wrong” interpretations, that are not wrong at all but just steps on the way to an answer.
      The only way to find that answer is open research, research, research, without that research being destroyed by opinion, opinion, opinion.

    • Peter_Roe

      “Maybe the notion of “diameter” is not applicable to the object “proton” at all, as all they can measure just leads to an interpretation they call a “diameter”” et seq.

      My impression is that this is absolutely the right way to view such results. Everything at quantum levels depends on the methods used to make ‘observations’, when the mere act of observing becomes a part of the phenomenon or particle under observation.

  • georgehants

    To help those who do not understand the connection of this post to Cold Fusion.
    This is showing that the corruption and incompetence of science is not just an odd occurrence but is endemic across many areas.
    With this Evidence and much more for thousands of years science still debunks and deny’s the Placebo because it does not fit their reductionist religion and there is no profit.
    There should be a full scale open-minded competent research program to ascertain the full effects, that are indeed unbelievably powerful.
    Any longer hiding this effect as with Cold Fusion is criminal.
    —-
    News in Science
    Placebos effective for most kid’s migraines
    A drug-free placebo pill prevents migraines in children and teens just as well as most headache medicines, according to a US study.
    Researchers published in JAMA Pediatrics found that only two drugs known to help migraine-plagued adults reduced the frequency of children’s headaches better than a placebo. Even in those cases the effect was small – a difference of less than one headache per month compared to the dummy pills.
    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/01/29/3678546.htm

    • Pweet

      Almost everything that you use these days is the result of science and engineering. I think they have done a pretty good job overall.
      I’m certain that science has millions of discoveries still to be made, but they will be made on the basis of someone coming up with an idea and then producing some logical explanations and equations to justify what they think, and if it’s possible, some experiments which can be carried out to prove their point.
      Science does not advance by someone saying they have something but they’re not going to say how it works or even show that it does work, and then expect everyone to believe them.
      That is called something else.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        That is called the free enterprise system, you profit from your IP.

        • Ged

          Therefore, you’re willing to invest the time, energy, and resources necessary to make that IP.

    • Preston

      Also, muons were used to make these measurements. They replaced the electrons in hydrogen atoms with muons. Muons being much heavier then an electron obit much closer to the proton. Muon catalyzed fusion has been proven and is the only form of cold fusion currently accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

  • georgehants

    How Changes in the Sun Impact Earth’s Climate
    Source: science@NASA news story
    In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
    There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet
    http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/5290/how-changes-in-the-sun-impact-earths-climate

  • Owen

    V3Solar Spin Cells could produce electricity at 2/3 cost of coal with zero carbon emissions (except for the production of the cells themselves).
    http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/24/v3solar-spin-cell-cones-cheap-solar/

    • Invy

      In terms of conversion efficiency they get at most a 4% increase, the interesting part is they use 1/20th the pv-material… So costs should be drastically lowered…

    • GreenWin

      Interesting. As with all PV, the sun shines only part of a day. And lately many PV panels lose efficiency due to dirt and dust films – a problem for residential installs. Ultimately, all alternatives will have to compete with 0.50 cents/kWh average cost of fuel and overhead of an LENR CHP system.

  • daniel maris

    Latest from the Maestro:

    Neri B.
    January 28th, 2013 at 7:19 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    1 . few months ago i remember you received a request from patent office to supply additional information in order to get the patent. Could you please update us ( if you can ) on the ongoing process? have you an idea on when this patent will be granted?
    2. Some weeks ago you stated that a REAL 1 MW plant would be placed up and running in February. Could you please update us on this plant? (without braking any NDA)
    3. Why don’t you upload on this site a report of one of your latest internal test with some data and some pictures? )

    Thank you for your kind attention
    Please make this 2013 the “LENR year” many people without a job are struggling for innovative opportunities
    Neri B.

    Andrea Rossi
    January 28th, 2013 at 8:30 AM
    Dear Neri B.:
    1- our attorneys are working
    2- I said February-March, we are in schedule, so far.
    3- we are waiting for the publication of the indipendent third party. Useless to publish other things before that.
    Yes, we are making jobs.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Miles

      It’s your post which keeps me clinging on and keeps me coming back. Great post Neri. We all need to keep pushing & stay focused !!!!!

  • Miles
    • Miles

      SIGNATURES NEEDED BY FEBRUARY 25, 2013 TO REACH GOAL OF 100,000
      TOTAL SIGNATURES ON THIS PETITION 124

      How do we spread the Word !!! Can someone help.

      • andreiko

        Flyers.

  • http://www.drboblog.com DrBob

    Hi guys, I am in Boston to study and report from MIT
    Check out my latest Cold Fusion Report!!!!

    Peace N Love / Dr Bob

    http://www.drboblog.com/where-is-bob/

    • Lukedc

      Good write up.
      Thanks Dr Bob.

      • http://www.drboblog.com DrBob

        My pleasure.

  • georgehants

    From Chemistry World
    Plan for UK’s ‘eight great technologies’ outlined
    28 January 2013Maria Burke
    Advanced materials and energy are two of the ‘eight great technologies’ that the UK government wants to use to propel the country to future growth. The government has now announced how it will allocate funding to them with the aim of taking them from the lab to the marketplace.
    The Minister for Universities and Science, David Willetts, explains: ‘It is R&D and technology and engineering as distinct from pure science. It is our historic failure to back this which lies behind the familiar problems of the so-called “valley of death” between scientific discoveries and commercial applications.’
    http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/01/eight-great-technologies-uk-government-funding

  • Zaghlool

    “Well, it is impossible to understand perfectly all the secrets of the nature around us. Our brains and thoughts are very modest compared to the greatness of the creator.” – Zaghlool.
    This phrase is Zaghlool’s Trade Mark.

  • georgehants

    From The Examiner
    Andrea Rossi, the man who saved the World
    new energy technologies
    January 27, 2013
    By: Gianluca D’Agostino
    It’s kind of rare to live in the same lifetime of a genius who invented something so revolutionary to change the way we live.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/andrea-rossi-the-man-who-saved-the-world

    • Zaghlool

      Well, Andrea Rossi reveived a special inspiration regarding the secrets of the Cold Fusion Phenomena in the right time.
      Without that special inspiration neither Andrea Rossi or another 1000 scientists could do any thing regarding this issue.

      • Fibber McGourlick

        Examiner.com is not a reliable source of news. Check it out on Wikipedia.

        • Gerrit

          Wikipedia is a reliable source ? LOL

          • HeS

            +1

            • Fibber McGourlick

              LOL Gerrit. You’re right,of cours. Wiki is not always a reliable source. In this case,however, it is.

          • GreenWin

            +5!! But this author is not well informed. There are many omissions and errors in this article.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Edison claimed 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.

        • Zaghlool

          Well that the 1% portion is the Key.
          Every one can make the 99% portion but the key portion needs inspiration.

    • Hugo

      The man who SAVED the world? How do you say ‘utterly premature’ in Italian?

      • GreenWin

        Likely. But this story is now in rotation on Time Warner’s Road Runner cable service. Mainstream?

  • Gerrit

    The film “The Believers” is screened at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois on March 15

    I hope some of the scientists there will find the story interesting enough to start reading up on the peer reviewed literature.

    http://thebelieversmovie.com/

    • GreenWin

      If you haven’t seen it – check “The Believers” trailer. It’s well done and a good link to post on social media.

  • Jay

    I don´t understand why some people have so much difficult to understand how science work. This news must be really strange if one think that scientific knowledge includes only “settled” and “non-settled” things. Especially when it is published in Science. I know many in here thinks that way, especially the ones that call scientists dogmatic. This news is a perfect example how science don´t hold anything as 100% “settled”.

    In those cases when one may get the impression that science holds some knowledge as “settled” what science/scientist mean is that there is not enough reason to believe that it should be in any other way. However, as soon as new information is gained, just as in this example, there might be a reason to change the model.

    It is the same for Cold Fusion. What scientist mean when the say that Cold Fusion is impossible is that they think there is no reason to believe otherwise. Cold Fusion has yet not showed enough evidence to motivate a change of the current model. Not even to prove excess heat would be enough. Only when a new better model (theory) that could explain more than the old one, the models could be change.

    • georgehants

      Jay, who are you suggesting does the research in the first place.
      I thought that was what scientists where for.
      If they don’t believe it because nobody researches it because they don’t believe it is possible —
      You are describing quite correctly the crazy state of incompetent science.

      • Jay

        No George, it is not a crazy state. It might look so if you generalize and put all scientist in one basket. Of course it should be performed by scientists and what have seen it does so today, or? I have seen you referring to several papers written by scientist.

        I am only explaining why SOME scientist think it is not worth putting their effort and energy one something they estimate won´t give any interesting results.

        To blame all scientist (or science) that not more of them do research on Cold Fusion is like blaming all musicians in the world that not more of them plays heavy death metal or experimental jazz (if that is a genre)

        • GreenWin

          Jay, take a look at DeNinno’s paper on evidence of He4 in cold fusion experiments (aka “Report 41″) ordered by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia in his capacity as President of ENEA, the Italian Dept. of Energy.

          The paper was sent to 41 “scientific” journals. Each and every one refused to publish. This is why George uses words like dogmatic, and incompetent. Even when evidence to change the model is found – certain dogmatic or corrupt individuals refuse to hear it.

          • Jay

            Greenwin,
            I am not saying that cold fusion papers have been wrongly rejected. I can´t say that because many of them is outside my field of expertise, so I am not able to review them fully. Are you?

            The papers I have read that have data that are in my field of expertise that I can review, many of them (not all), have been so poor that they wouldn´t have been published even if they were in another field.

            My point is that you can´t generelize. To attack the whole field of science and all scientist about being anything, only looking at cold fusion, is for me like judging all people from one country by meeting one person from that country.

            The paper you talk about may have been wrongly rejected, or it may not. But I don´t think neither me, you or George can be 100% sure that it is one way or the other.

    • Gerrit

      Jay, science can only generate new knowledge if there is funding for it.

      “cold fusion has not yet showed enough evidence …” And as long as there is no funding, enough evidence will never be created. There is however sufficient evidence to warrant thorough investigations.

      So explain to me why are there no research programs to investigate the fleischmann-pons effect that so many labs have claimed exists ?

      Just imagine that two scientists had claimed in 1989 that the proton has a different size and that many “great labs” tried to replicate the measurements but didn’t succeed ( and the rest of the story would also have been just like what happened to cold fusion). Do you think that this proton research would even have gotten funding ?

      There is a distinct difference between how science should be and how it really works. Just like politics and so many other things in life.

      And NO, you do not need a working theory before you can do experiments. This proton experiment is the perfect example for performing experiments without a valid theory that explains what you see.

      There was no reason to believe that the proton had a different size and yet the did the experiment and they got funding for it.

      • Jay

        I am getting in to the funding discussion, which are another story. To be a “odd bird” is a problematic situation in any scientific field. You are correct that the funding systems is far from optimum and might be contra productive. But it is a little like democracy. Not perfect, but it is difficult to find better systems. Maybe you have a system that could work better for all scientific fields and that gives more “revenues” per dollar? I am open for it.

        Regarding F-P, I can only guess that they interpret and value the results from the other labs in another way than you.

        Regarding the proton. If a lab had done this experiment at 1989 I guess that the result would have been received the same as today.

        No, science doesn´t work as good as it could because humans are involved.

        Of course you can do experiment. Where did I say that you couldn´t? Maybe you misunderstood me?

        Yes, good for them…?

        • Gerrit

          Regarding F-P, still – to this day – scientists will tell you that the experiment could not be reproduced, which is absolutely wrong as there are many peer reviewed papers stating that the effect was replicated.

          Regarding “interpret and value”, if the credibility of the topic is completely destroyed already during education – cold fusion is used as the example of pathological science – it is fair to assume that the interpretation and value for any claim of a positive results is probably slanted, don’t you think ?

          In the recent colloquium at TU Eindhoven not one single scientist from the “hot fusion” department attented. Why is that, do you think?

          Regarding funding – The DOE ERAB panel in 1989 and in 2004 while recommending against a full blown state research program, recommended that funding for well designed experiments should be granted in order to understand the effect.

          Strange that such funding never happened, don’t you think ?

          Most of science behaves for the greater good of humanity, I agree. But when powerful decision makers have a wrong perception of an entire field things can go horribly wrong, which is the case for cold fusion.

          • GreenWin

            Many in and out of science refuse to comprehend the evidence of internal chicanery, little different from political or criminal chicanery. Science has largely escaped scrutiny up to now, because of its perceived “ivory tower” status.

            The advent of commercial LENR and the near-unimaginable boon to humanity, is hard evidence that certain of these towers have been built on a foundation of deception.

          • Jay

            Probably a lot of things in the F-P story got nasty and mistreated. In a perfect world, each report would have treated fairly and objectively. I also think that it would be great to have more LENR research and that really hope that it is true.

            However, I don´t think you can be sure of that F-P experiment (or the replicators)actually showed excess heat and that it came from fusion. Just as I can´t be sure that it didn´t. You use the term peer-reviewed as a proof that it must be true. That I wouldn´t do. I have read too many peer-reviewed papers to be able to say that. It is definetly better than not peer-reviewed, but it not make it certain.

            • Gerrit

              You are wrong, I do not use the term peer reviewed paper as a proof that it must be true. How did you get to that impression ?

              two facts:

              a) many different labs over a timeframe of 23 years have reported and continue to report about an anomalous heat effect, or tritium, or helium, or neutrons, or transmutations.

              b) many labs over the course of a few weeks in 1989 tried to replicate Fleischmann-Pons (without even having a detailed experimental protocol) and could not reproduce the effect. The field has been dismissed as pathological science ever since. (Please note that during that same period other labs did report that they managed to reproduce the effect.)

              I would like scientists to look at this field as just another interesting topic for which they can perform experiments. But almost all don’t, they either despise it or they are completely ignorant about it.

              It is a great failure of _science_ to let this happen, to simply discard all these different reportings that something unexpected might be going on.

              • Jay

                Gerrit,
                I think we agree more than you think.

                I also think the field is so interesting that there need to be much more research going on. I also think that a lot went wrong in the F-P story and that there are a lot of non-scientific issues holding the field back (funding, ignorance etc.)
                Yes, I now a lot of labs have reported access heat and so on. But I know that those report doesn´t have results that is crystal clear and not open for debate and 100% not questionable.

                My point is that it is impossible for any person that not have full excess to all detailed information on all the work and the expertise to review them to be 100% sure that they are true or not true.

                • Gerrit

                  I also think we agree :-)

                  Now what can we do to make it happen ?

    • RichyRoo

      Your comment “Only when a new better model (theory) that could explain more than the old one, the models could be change.” is completely wrong.
      The correct interpretation is:
      “As soon as there is a single measurement or observation which contradicts a model or theory; that model or theory is falsified and should be immediately discarded.”
      The scientific methos is observation, hypothesis, observation; observation comes BEFORE THEORY.

      • HeS

        @:”that model or theory is falsified and should be immediately discarded.”

        Model does not necessarily have to be rejected. Perhaps it has to be modified a little.

        Unfortunately, often we do not know how to modify or create a new model so we need to use the old one.

      • Jay

        No, I don´t agree with you. Science uses the BEST available model or theory, even if it is well known that it isn´t perfect. This is one of the first thing you learn studying science at a higher level.
        Some is better than others. In many fields you know you don´t have a perfect theory because you are missing information or knowledge to complete it. That is why you do research.

        Yes, you are correct, those are the foundations. But if you do observations on totally random things without any idea on what you are looking for or why, it will quite soon be highly inefficient. If you have an idea, it is good to base it on old knowledge or theories. If the idea contradicts old knowledge, the chance that you will find anything interesting is less (even if it is not zero).

    • Peter_Roe

      “Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.”

      Thomas Henry Huxley

      • Jay

        Nice quote Peter, however, I am sorry to say that I find it a little misplaced, but maybe I am misinterpret it, or you me.

        • GreenWin

          Recommend Prof. Henry H. Bauer, Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences and Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies at Virginia Tech: Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method

          “Genuine science, the search for better understanding, has been hijacked by self-interest and vested interests and is now captive to knowledge monopolies and research cartels: A single theory exerts dogmatic control over grants, publications, jobs, promotions.”

          http://amzn.to/WKDV5p

          • Jay

            Greenwin,
            I don´t question this. I am fully aware of the problems within science. But since I have a lot of personal experience of it I can only say that my experience doesn´t fit with how many people here describe science. It is far from as black and white as described here, much more grayish.

            And I think it is always dangerous to simplify and judge a complex question when it is more complex in real life. I think that is true also in politics and other subjects.

        • Peter_Roe

          Jay

          I agree with most of your comment, except for the idea that as soon as new information is gained, science will follow by changing its theoretical models. The evidence seems to indicate the contrary – that scientists will often cling onto outdated models long past the point where new evidence falsifies them, usually for rather non-scientific reasons of prestige, dogma or mental fossilisation, peer pressure, funding and so on. I’m actually not entirely clear whether you are speaking for yourself in this instance, or for scientists in general, but the fact is that the latter seems to be very much the case with cold fusion/LENR.

          Huxley is chiding the scientists of his day who (as now) refused to investigate observed ‘anomalies’ because they appeared to contradict what they thought they knew. In other words for ignoring evidence because it contradicts accepted theory. It seems to me that there is more than enough evidence for anomalous heat and transmutation to cause scientists to ‘follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads’. Yet by and large they don’t – for whatever reason.

          Sorry to add to the rather strong reaction to your comments – I’m just trying to clarify my reason for posting the Huxley quote.

      • GreenWin

        Peter, we have now in the rebirth of LENR/cold fusion, a perfect example of how western science in particular refuses to give up “preconceived notions.” There will remain, even after irrefutable evidence, a small legion of old thought, refusing to acknowledge or consider the vast horizons found in the faith of a little child.

        • Peter_Roe

          Indeed. That was of course my understanding of the meaning pf Huxley’s observation and my reason for quoting it. I’m so sure the legion is that small in this case – but ‘the times they are a’changin” to quote someone else entirely.

          • Peter_Roe

            not so sure the legion…. I must try to get some of the spilled coffee and other crud out of my keyboard.

            • GreenWin

              I should think an ancient Roman Legion of 5,000 maninples and cohorts large enough to accommodate our recalcitrants. But this may be pathological optimism.

  • georgehants

    Taiwan billionaire launches Asian ‘Nobel prize’ January 28, 2013 One of Taiwan’s richest men on Monday launched what has been widely touted as the Asian equivalent of the Nobel Prize, and it is even more lucrative than the famed Swedish award.
    Samuel Yin, head of the sprawling Ruentex business empire, said that by donating Tw$3 billion ($101 million) for the Tang Prize he had fulfilled one of his biggest dreams. “I hope that the prize will encourage more research that is beneficial to the world and humankind, promote Chinese culture and make the world a better place,” he said. Beginning in 2014 prizes will be awarded every two years in four different categories—sustainable development, biopharmaceutical science, sinology and the “rule of law”—to individuals, regardless of nationality.
    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-taiwan-billionaire-asian-nobel-prize.html#jCp

    • Andre Blum

      Berlusconi, Greenhouse gases, Nobel prizes, Neelie Kroes, Dolphins …

      really, George, despite your intro’s, these articles are not related to cold fusion.

      I know you have the best intentions, and postings like these are born out of sheer enthusiasm for the subject of cold fusion. It is recognizable, in a way. Like you, we are all waiting for the big moment. But postings like these don’t help anyone and will not speed up the process.

      Try to stick to that what is relevant.

      • georgehants

        Andre, thank you, but you seem to be giving just your opinion like scientists do about Cold Fusion.
        Some I think appreciate the posts while it is quiet.
        So please try and just not read the posts you do not find interesting.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Admin in his wisdom has created an alternative site for subjects not connected to cold fusion.

  • Andreiko

    Calm before the storm?

    • Peter_Roe

      Darkest before dawn?

      • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

        Borest before yawn?

        • GreenWin

          Poorest without Yuan?

  • georgehants

    I see that Cold Fusion is top of the agenda in Europe.
    After 60 years they cannot even make a computer that remotely understands spoken English yet they still talk about copying the brain as if it where a steam engine.
    —-
    The New York Times Europe
    2 Science Projects to Receive Award of a Billion Euros
    By JAMES KANTER
    Published: January 28, 2013
    BRUSSELS — Projects to imitate the brain and to develop new materials for information technology have won awards of about 1 billion euros each that will be announced Monday by the European Commission.
    The awards, the largest of their kind ever made by the European authorities and equivalent to about $1.35 billion each, are aimed at helping innovative industries in the European Union and nonmember countries like Switzerland.
    “Europe’s position as a knowledge superpower depends on thinking the unthinkable and exploiting the best ideas,” Neelie Kroes, the European commissioner for information technology, said in a statement prepared in advance of the formal announcement.
    The goal is to “keep Europe competitive, to keep Europe as the home of scientific excellence,” Ms. Kroes said.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/world/europe/2-science-projects-to-receive-billion-euro-award.html?_r=0

    • Gerrit

      the money is awarded to the “winners” of more than 20 projects.

      The european commission announced that they would fund projects. Several teams made project plans and submitted them. Normal business in science funding.

      The european commission would (or could) never do this for LENR research, simply because there wouldn’t be any groups interested. Apart from a few small scale efforts at some european universities, the topic is still dead.

      To really understand LENR a billion euro multi disciplinary project is necessary. There is simply no way that the european union is going to stand up, against the belief system of the physics community, and initiate this.

      “LENR research” will – at best – slowly emerge from nano-technology or battery research or any other research area that fiddles around in such environments.

      • Peter_Roe

        Or just possibly from trying to understand where a steadily rising percentage of their electrical power is coming from!

  • http://www.american-reporter.com Joe Shea

    I just wish there was some news about Rossi and LENR…

    • Omega Z
      • Peter_Roe

        “Hot Cat 10MW for power generation – For Sale” Yet the diagram seems to show 10 x 1MW container units in a CHP system, NOT a ‘hot cat’ – with a link to the October demo of a ‘warm cat’ by way of further information! Sites like this can be slightly mystifying.

        • Omega Z

          @ Peter

          Yes, Most of these E-cat sites have information that appears wrong.

          I posted this because I hadn’t seen the Swiss site prior to this.

          Note there are 2 links on the site.

    • georgehants

      Morning Joe, why do you think there is not more news from the science administration about the Wonderful new technology of Cold Fusion.

  • georgehants

    From You Tube
    Cold Fusion Energy NOW! Videos.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/ColdFusionNow/videos

  • georgehants

    Mr. Berlusconi seems to want to undermine the Wonderful publicity that Cold Fusion is giving to Italy.
    —–
    Berlusconi causes outrage by praising Mussolini on Holocaust Memorial Day
    Berlusconi’s defence of Italy’s fascist dictator, and a possible banking scandal on the left, set to electrify election campaign.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/27/berlusconi-praise-mussolini-holocaust-memorial-day

    • David

      This suggests that Berlusconi’s brain is smaller than the proton

      • giro

        Much to the contrary, mr Berlusconi is a genius in diverting the attention from his personal problems (a.o. ‘rubygate’) and make the media angry, so he can play the role of ‘poor misunderstood and bashed leader’, which he hopes will give him votes… In the past, he has been very succesful with this (and of course, having control of all national italian tv stations does help). I really hope for Italy’s sake that he’ll not succeed this time.

        • Ivan Mohorovicic

          In a way, that sounds a bit like what Rossi is doing, doesn’t it?

          • Doug Hulstedt MD

            Say are you related to whoever discovered the mohorovicic discontinuity?
            Thanks

            • Ivan Mohorovicic

              Nope, not at all.

          • giro

            good point Ivan…

  • Ged

    The 4% change in the size of the proton is huge. This has to do with the fact that proton sizes and mass are constants used in many other equations, such as the cosmological constant that defines the rate of the universes expansion. 4% on these scales is a very big change which will have ripple effects throughout physics if confirmed yet again.

    Fascinating, and important discoveries! Could also be that hydrogen is weird too.

    • Barry

      Well put, thanks Ged.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Thanks Ged.

      Disn’t have a clue what this was about until I read your explanation.

      I can see how constants that change can have huge implications. It’s like saying the speed of light is more than 300000km/sec…

    • Omega Z

      @ Ged

      The Laws of Physics will not Bend or Conform to Mans Laws of Physics.
      We Have Much To Learn. It is we who will have to Conform.

  • georgehants

    From Scribd.
    Limited Warming from Doubled Greenhouse Gases
    Norwegian Study Finds Limited Warming from Doubled Greenhouse Gases
    A new analysis of the likely warming from a doubled concentration of greenhouse gases (compared to the level just preceding the industrial revolution) comes in far lower than the findings of most other research efforts and the conclusions of the last IPCC report. The analysis will be closely scrutinized by other modeling groups and climate scientists.The conclusion is close to that of Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois, whose work was discussed on Dot Earth last year:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/122347692/Norwegian-Study-Finds-Limited-Warming-from-Doubled-Greenhouse-Gases

    • Hadamhiram

      Funny how it can go both ways when you cherrypick. Here’s Nicholas Stern saying climate change is far worse than previously thought: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/27/nicholas_stern_says_he_underestimated_risks_of_climate_change.html

      • georgehants

        Would it be a good idea if they put up a few more thermometers and admit Global Warming is possible but they do not have a clue that we are not heading for the next Ice-Age.
        Science likes to make out it has all the answers when it does not even know what 94% of the Universe is made of.
        It likes to preach that we do not even have free choice and animals have no feelings or emotion beyond the robotic.
        Science in many areas such as Cold Fusion etc. is a joke.

        • georgehants

          Dolphins team up to rescue injured companion by forming a raft,
          Wow, this is incredibly moving footage folks…people everywhere need to see this!
          Everybody’s favourite cetacean just got a little more lovable. For the first time, dolphins have been spotted teaming up to try to rescue an injured group member.
          12 dolphins were seen swimming very close together. One female was in difficulties: it was wriggling and tipping from side to side, sometimes turning upside-down.
          The other dolphins crowded around it, often diving beneath it and supporting it from below. After about 30 minutes, the dolphins formed into an impromptu raft: they swam side by side with the injured female on their backs. By keeping the injured female above water, they may have helped it to breathe, avoiding drowning (see video at link below).
          http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread921551/pg1

          • Joel C.

            Dolphins are very intelligent.

      • http://none David Albert
        • http://www.liberationtechnology.co.uk Dave Lawton

          Well if they do keep cutting down the trees in the Amazon
          what do they expect.

    • georgehants

      Has global warming slowed right down?
      Posted January 28, 2013 – 10:07 by Kate Taylor
      Global warming could be a lot less extreme than feared, according to a new study which finds that worldwide temperatures have levelled off.
      “These results are truly sensational,” says Dr Caroline Leck of Stockholm University, who wasn’t involved in the research. “If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate.”
      Read more at http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-brief/69063-has-global-warming-slowed-right-down#CFEQke1qDZ3zwFzE.99

      • Peter_Roe

        It’s only been a little more than a decade with no significant warming – even university scientists catch on eventually.

        • GreenWin

          “Ok, but this will not effect our funding… Will it?”

  • georgehants

    Solar: It’s about to be a whole new world
    Sunday, 27 January 2013
    And now, after decades of research and subsidies, we may be on the verge of waking up into a whole new world. The cost of solar power has been falling exponentially for the past 35 years. What’s more, there is no sign at all that this cost drop is slowing. New technologies are in the pipeline right now that have the potential to make solar competitive with coal and natural gas, even with zero government subsidy.
    http://machineslikeus.com/news/solar-its-about-be-whole-new-world

  • georgehants

    From The White House, Washington
    —-
    we petition the obama administration to:
    Assign the Department of Energy to do a Thorough Evaluation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Technologies
    Recent research has indicated that Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (sometimes called LENR or Cold Fusion) may very well be real. In fact, several small companies founded by researchers claim to be very close to having LENR devices ready to go to market. LENR technologies – if they are real – when used on a large scale could revolutionize energy production around the world. Air pollution, the depletion of natural resources, and CO2 emissions that are said to cause global warming would be dramatically curtailed. The DOE, with its $24 billion annual budget, has neglected to investigate LENR technologies. Isn’t it time for the DOE to get out front on LENR research and let the world know if these technologies are real?
    Created: Jan 26, 2013
    Issues: Energy, Environment, Innovation
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/assign-department-energy-do-thorough-evaluation-low-energy-nuclear-reaction-lenr-technologies/2ljzpcth?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

    • C.T.

      signed

      • clovis

        signed , #66

    • Joel C.

      Signed as well.

      I am not really sure if we will make it to 100,000.

      But, one can hope!

      • clovis

        ooops

    • Joel C.

      At the speed in which the signing is going currently, we won’t make it to 100,000 signatures in time.

    • Peterem

      Signed. George, I’d be interested in your opinion on a Resource Based Economy and how this might affect scientific research and moving toward a more civilized society. Clean energy is a big part of the push.

      http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy

      “Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfillment of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.
      At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today’s society would no longer be necessary.
      A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.”

      • georgehants

        Peterem, hello, Your Resource based economy while engaging money and finance would I think still lead to over production and waste for profit reasons.
        The trick is to remove all unnecessary work so that people are Free and able to enjoy life and if they wish help others.
        If all economies where based on supplying the needs and fair luxuries of all then only jobs to archive that are necessary and everybody would have a short working week and retire at an early age as the remaining necessary work is shared.
        All the millions working with money or finance would be unemployed except for those handling a points system (money) where everybody has a place to live, warmth, food, transport etc at a basic level from birth until death then all workers depending on their work value and how much they give to society (eg, entertainers, sportsmen, etc. etc.) would receive higher points for more luxuries.
        Basing all on needed supply would automatically lead to a wise use of resources and with no profit the most efficient possible technology.
        No inherited wealth and no inherited power or position, the only people going to Oxford or Cambridge would be the brightest students in the land.
        I am aware that many people immediately scream communism etc.
        Not communism, not capitalism but a new ism altogether.

  • clovis

    hello, all
    Interesting, find, just skimmed through the article, still quite iffy. but could turn out to be big, for lenr, as i see it. from what i think i know, lol is that hydrogen plays a major part in lenr, and it could be that hydrogen being one of the smallest atoms, is carousal in the process, and if muonic hydrogen is even smaller, then it would seem you could pack more in the metal latus, and produce a better gain of heat. — just my guess

  • Jacob

    If the Proton is Smaller or bigger than previously believed, that does not make any difference with me.
    The definite thing I believe in it is: The atom is trinity(same as its creator)and can not be less or more than that :
    1)Electrons
    2)Neutrons
    3)Protons.

    • Paolo

      This is the same way of reasoning of a traditional scientist against the Lenr: something new? It doesn’t matter for me! Good comment: 10+ To be serious, it is not necessary this new finding to understand that Lenr open a completely new field that, in my opinion as a physicist, will give at least a couple of different Nobel Prizes in the next 1-2 decades, probably one related to the heat in excess and the related theory (not Widom-Larsen!) and one for the nanomagnetic (Rossi/Ahern) and/or NTC (Celani) behaviour.

    • elasticbucket

      And LENR?

    • Peter_Roe

      A hydrogen atom consists of a proton and an electron only.

      • georgehants

        Morning Peter, very true but can you smell the difference between Hydrogen and deuterium.
        The World is Quantum not classical.
        —-
        Study Bolsters Quantum Vibration Scent Theory.
        Yet here’s a twist: odorant molecules typically contain many hydrogen atoms. And hydrogen comes in multiple forms, each very chemically similar to the others. But those different isotopes of hydrogen do strongly affect how a molecule vibrates. So deuterium, containing a hydrogen nucleus that has both a proton and a neutron (as opposed to plain-old-hydrogen that has just a proton), might help scientists discriminate between the proposed vibration and standard chemical binding theories of olfaction.
        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-bolsters-quantum-vibration-scent-theory

  • Zaghlool

    Ofcourse there are many things are not as we believe today.
    I remember a story from Jordan:
    A head of horse was found in a large farm , the head was examined by scientists and they found it is 10,000 years old.
    The research office brought a bonus cheque to the farm owner.
    The farm owner asked: what that cheque for ? They told him that for the historical discovery of a horse head we found in your farm , he asked them where in the farm you found the head,they told him about the location in the farm , he laughed and told them that head is for horse I buried 6 years ago, come to give you the whole horse body.
    That farm earth contains chemicals which caused wrong calculations by the scientists.