Steven b krivit biography channel

They reported anomalous production of noble gases and increases in the abundances of rare metals. However, the experimental results could not be explained by any scientific theory or principle. The results were difficult to replicate and generally were assumed to be the result of experimental error. By the s, it was all dismissed as error.

In his book Lost HistorySteven Krivit is the first person to have critically examined and reviewed the early 20th century transmutation research. Krivit credits a man named Robert A. Nelson and his book Adept Alchemy for leaving behind the bread crumbs that helped Krivit find this long-forgotten history. While conducting research for his book Lost HistoryKrivit stumbled on a year myth that credited physicist Ernest Rutherford with the discovery of the first artificial transmutation.

The myth started with Rutherford, who, inbegan claiming the discovery for himself. In JanuaryKrivit contacted prominent scientific and academic institutions in an effort to correct the recorded history. Department of Energy concurred with Krivit. Department of Energy. While conducting research for his book Fusion FiascoKrivit stumbled on a widespread misunderstanding about the most powerful fusion reactor result.

JET had been widely reported to have produced thermal power from fusion at a rate of 67 percent of the input electrical power the reactor consumed. Krivit found that that rate was actually only one percent. ITER had been widely reported as designed to produce thermal power from fusion at a rate 10 times greater than the input power the reactor is designed to consume.

From 50 megawatts of input power, proponents of ITER claimed the reactor would produce megawatts of thermal power from fusion.

Steven b krivit biography channel

Krivit explained that the megawatt value applied only to the injected heating power used to heat the fuel. Krivit located a dozen sources that revealed that the actual input power for the overall reactor would be megawatts to initiate the reaction and at least megawatts more likely MW throughout the reaction. Krivit published this information on Oct.

On August 29,Krivit was the first to report the real input energy, MJ, required to operate the lasers at the National Ignition Facility. The investigations of Mr. As such, there is great variance in opinion about this developing field. Some of the opinions are driven by what some scientists observe in the experiments, and for some, what they want to believe is happening.

Some of the opinions are driven by the interests of commercial and investment promoters in the field. My opinions are driven by 23 years as an independent author, writer, and reviewer of the subject. Although I have collaborated with scientists, from time to time writing peer-reviewed journal articles, I have never had any business relationship with any scientist, investor, or company that is involved in the field.

In my opinion, LENRs are neither fission nor fusion, but fundamentally a weak-interaction-mediated process initiated by ultra-low momentum neutrons. The primary fuel component appears to require a form of the chemical element hydrogen, either normal hydrogen or its heavy isotope called deuterium, either in gas or a liquid form. The secondary fuel component appears to require a type of metal that, like a sponge, readily absorbs lots of hydrogen.

Such metals include palladium, nickel, and titanium. The experimental results demonstrate the production of thermal energy at scientifically —but not technologically —significant levels. Despite the low absolute levels of thermal output observed so far, the scale, relative to the volume of mass of the reactants, is far beyond that of any known chemical reaction.

The results demonstrate a wide variety of direct nuclear phenomena such as isotopic shifts, elemental changes, charged particles, helium, tritium, and indirect nuclear phenomena such as melting and vaporization of metals where the reactions take place. There are at least 20 major experimental configurations, most of them can be triggered in a variety of ways, some more reliably than others.

Do you see the mastery of LENR as making revolutionary changes in the way we will do things in the future on Earth and in Space, as electricity has done for us, and fusion will do, or is it a lesser, technical innovation? Krivit: When the phenomena was reported in by electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, they and people who took their work seriously immediately recognized that the experiments showed thermal energy production— at nuclear scale.

Yet the most amazing and perplexing aspect of the discovery was that, despite the nuclear-scale rates of steven b krivit biography channel production, the reactions did not produce commensurate high rates of biologically hazardous radiation. Fleischmann and Pons, to their own later regretassumed and claimed that they had achieved a new, simpler, and cheaper route to nuclear fusion.

As their announcement came at a time when traditional nuclear fusion research was suffering from continued budget cutbacks, they could not have made themselves greater political targets. Equally problematic was the fact that their proposition that nuclear reactions at high rates, with only low-energy stimuli, contradicted—not laws of physics —but years of scientific opinion.

Anyone with some basic understanding of the experiments, however, who spends a few hours objectively looking at the best examples of the published research, will recognize that Fleischmann and Pons, however unintentionally, stumbled on a new scientific phenomenon that indicates a potential new source of energy. Science authorities of the day branded them frauds, calling them incompetent and delusional.

These representatives of the scientific community were emotional, incredulous, and angry. A few months after Fleischmann and Pons made their public announcement in Marchthey realized that fusion was not the most accurate way to describe what they had found. Many of their followers were less willing to shift their thinking about the fusion explanation that Fleischmann and Pons had initially proposed.

For the most part, their initial reactions were unscientific, although, to a large extent, understandable: Again, the results presented by Fleischmann and Pons conflicted—not with any laws of science—but they conflicted, dramatically, with what scientists had believed for years: that nuclear reactions that might produce significant energetic output could be initiated with only high-energy input.

Low-energy nuclear reactions show otherwise, and reveal a vast new area of science waiting to be explored—one that has every indicator of a possible future source of clean, abundant, energy. LENRs suggest that we may, in the future, have the ability to relatively easily create elements across the Periodic Table. Creation of new elements is routinely done, but to date only with complex high-energy devices.

To do such things with tabletop devices? Well, that sounds much too close to the alchemy of previous centuries that was directly associated with charlatans. Everything we do know about LENRs indicates that if it scales up from lab stevens b krivit biography channel to viable technology, it would produce no greenhouse gases, no radioactive waste, and require only common raw materials to operate.

The hard part is to appreciate this immense potential in the current context. Curie knew that a novel, unexplained source of energy was producing the heat. That, in a similar way, is what Fleischmann and Pons observed in their experiments. The problem, as I mentioned, is context. We tend to look for validation from the broader science community.

That validation, for the most part, does not exist in LENRs right now, but it has been slowly growing. Notley: Over the past year-and-a-half, there has been a renewed interest in LENR on behalf of our government. Can you say what sector is driving that interest? A combo? How about the general public? Perhaps harder to assess. Needless to say, their efforts did not pan out well for them or for the field.

InAllen Widom and Lewis G. Larsen and Widom had pieced together a wide variety of disparate scientific phenomena, intersecting several areas of physics, that no one had previously figured out. Larsen then began an outreach campaign to the mainstream science community and the U. Byeven detractors of the theory acknowledged the progress the theory had caused in bringing increasing acceptance of the field.

Widom and Larsen have put forth a model to describe excess heat and transmutation in LENR experiments. I will be the first to do so on Aug. Explain the reason those boundaries exist. Steven B. He is an editor of three reference books on nuclear energy research and has written more than 1, news articles on nuclear science research. Krivit is an expert in the analysis of science conflict and also on the matters of power balance and fuel supply for thermonuclear fusion.

Krivit Very low-volume. But It's Something " by S. They call that research. Dramatic demonstration, investors fleeced 1.