Newsgroup: it.scienza.chimica
Titolo: Conferenza Internazionale sulle Nuove Energie

Il 23 e 24 aprile 2005 a Grottammare (AP) si terrà la III
Conferenza Nazionale sulle Nuove energie, organizzata dall'ONNE
(Osservatorio Nazionale Nuove Energie - 
www.onne.it
) e
patrocinata da Comune, Provincia ed imprenditori locali e
nazionali.
Quest'anno, in linea con gli obiettivi dell'ONNe, parleremo di
- nuovo paradigma scientifico
- nuove energie già pronte
- innovazione tecnologica nelle piccole e medie aziende del
settore
Tutto questo in chiave sia nazionale che internazionale,
essendoci, fra i relatori, esponenti internazionali di fama
riconosciuta!
Inoltre daremo ampio spazio a quanti hanno progetti energetici
realmente innovativi ed alternativi!
Se hai un idea, se hai anche solo un progetto, contattaci su
in...@onne.it
 o vai sul sito 
www.onne.it
 nella sezione Collaborazioni e
informaci del tuo progetto!
Potremmo darti la possibilità di parlarne già nella conferenza
internazionale di aprile davanti ad imprenditori ed aziende di settore
presenti solo per decidere dove investire i propri soldi!
L'ONNE sta facendo diventare realtà progetti innovativi e
"scomodi" come la Fusione Fredda ed altri interessanti progetti!
L'ONNE mette a disposizione la propria esperienza per presentare
a potenziali finanziatori la tua idea, il tuo progetto o il tuo
prototipo funzionate!
Contattaci e sarai contattato!
Responsabile
Comunicazione
ONNE
Per contatti diretti: 
+393398552201

 "scomodi" come la Fusione Fredda ed altri interessanti progetti!
Scusa, ma gia' questo basta per gettare un ombra su ombra su questa 
conferenza.
ciao Dario


Scusa, perchè?
Ovviamente non è noto a nessuno che l'ENEA nel 2003 ha DIMOSTRATO
scientificamente che il fenomeno esiste ed è sfruttabile?
Bisognerebbe informarsi prima di "pensare" di sapere.
Il peggior nemico dell'innovazione e del cambiamento è proprio l'ignoranza e
la saccenza.
Sul nostro sito (
www.onne.it
) ci sono tutti i documenti...
Ciao...

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1X_Qd.908418$35.34...@news4.tin.it...


 scientificamente che il fenomeno esiste ed è sfruttabile?
Il documento linkato sul sito non si riesce a scaricare ("the page cannot be
found")
Tex

 la saccenza.
No, il peggior nemico sono quelli che millantano scoperte tenute segrete 
da complotti misteriosi stile Xfiles.
Dario

 loro interessi.
Per carita', in Internet si trovano anche le prove che Elvis Presley e' 
vivo e lotta assieme a noi, magari nascosto nella giungla assieme a 
Lennon, Hitler e Janis Joplin.
Sorry, non aderisco a queste teorie complottistiche, e non conosco 
"fonti energetiche" insabbiate. Quelle "alternative" che si conoscono 
non si usano per buonissimi motivi tenologici e/o economici.
ciao Dario

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:cv1vcj$j3l$1...@atlantis.cu.mi.it...


 ciao Dario

QUESTO ARTICOLETTO RICAVATO DAL SITO DELL'ONNE
Fonte: 
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/resource/sep04/0904nfus.html
)
Foto della cella Iorio-Cirillo-Dattilo
Cold Fusion Back From the Dead
U.S. Energy Department gives true believers a new hearing
Later this month, the U.S. Department of Energy will receive a report from a
panel of experts on the prospects for cold fusion-the supposed generation of
thermonuclear energy using tabletop apparatus. It's an extraordinary
reversal of fortune: more than a few heads turned earlier this year when
James Decker, the deputy director of the DOE's Office of Science, announced
that he was initiating the review of cold fusion science. Back in November
1989, it had been the department's own investigation that determined the
evidence behind cold fusion was unconvincing. Clearly, something important
has changed to grab the department's attention now.
The cold fusion story began at a now infamous press conference in March
1989. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, both electrochemists working at
the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, announced that they had created
fusion using a battery connected to palladium electrodes immersed in a bath
of water in which the hydrogen was replaced with its isotope
deuterium-so-called heavy water. With this claim came the idea that tabletop
fusion could produce more or less unlimited, low-cost, clean energy.
In physicists' traditional view of fusion, forcing two deuterium nuclei
close enough together to allow them to fuse usually requires temperatures of
tens of millions of degrees Celsius. The claim that it could be done at room
temperature with a couple of electrodes connected to a battery stretched
credulity [see photo, "Too Good to Be True?"].
But while some scientists reported being able to reproduce the result
sporadically, many others reported negative results, and cold fusion soon
took on the stigma of junk science.
Today the mainstream view is that champions of cold fusion are little better
than purveyors of snake oil and good luck charms. Critics say that the
extravagant claims behind cold fusion need to be backed with exceptionally
strong evidence, and that such evidence simply has not materialized. "To my
knowledge, nothing has changed that makes cold fusion worth a second look,"
says Steven Koonin, a member of the panel that evaluated cold fusion for the
DOE back in 1989, who is now chief scientist at BP, the London-based energy
company.
Because of such attitudes, science has all but ignored the phenomenon for 15
years. But a small group of dedicated researchers have continued to
investigate it. For them, the DOE's change of heart is a crucial step toward
being accepted back into the scientific fold. Behind the scenes, scientists
in many countries, but particularly in the United States, Japan, and Italy,
have been working quietly for more than a decade to understand the science
behind cold fusion. (Today they call it low-energy nuclear reactions, or
sometimes chemically assisted nuclear reactions.) For them, the department's
change of heart is simply a recognition of what they have said all
along-whatever cold fusion may be, it needs explaining by the proper process
of science.
THE FIRST HINT that the tide may be changing came in February 2002, when the
U.S. Navy revealed that its researchers had been studying cold fusion on the
quiet more or less continuously since the debacle began. Much of this work
was carried out at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego,
where the idea of generating energy from sea water-a good source of heavy
water-may have seemed more captivating than at other laboratories.
Many researchers at the center had worked with Fleischmann, a well-respected
electrochemist, and found it hard to believe that he was completely
mistaken. What's more, the Navy encouraged a culture of risk-taking in
research and made available small amounts of funding for researchers to
pursue their own interests.
At San Diego and other research centers, scientists built up an impressive
body of evidence that something strange happened when a current passed
through palladium electrodes placed in heavy water.
And by 2002, a number of Navy scientists believed it was time to throw down
the gauntlet. A two-volume report, entitled "Thermal and nuclear aspects of
the Pd/D2O system," contained a remarkable plea for proper funding from
Frank Gordon, the head of navigation and applied science at the Navy center.
"It is time that this phenomenon be investigated so that we can reap
whatever benefits accrue from scientific understanding. It is time for
government funding agencies to invest in this research," he wrote. The
report was noted by the DOE but appeared to have little impact.
Then, last August, in a small hotel near the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, in Cambridge, some 150 engineers and scientists met for the
Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. Conference observers were
struck by the careful way in which various early criticisms of the research
were being addressed. Over the years, a number of groups around the world
have reproduced the original Pons-Fleischmann excess heat effect, yielding
sometimes as much as 250 percent of the energy put in.
To be sure, excess energy by itself is not enough to establish that fusion
is taking place. In addition to energy, critics are quick to emphasize, the
fusion of deuterium nuclei should produce other byproducts, such as helium
and the hydrogen isotope tritium. Evidence of these byproducts has been
scant, though Antonella de Ninno and colleagues from the Italian National
Agency for New Technologies Energy and the Environment, in Rome, have found
strong evidence of helium generation when the palladium cells are producing
excess heat but not otherwise.
Other researchers are finally beginning to explain why the Pons-Fleischmann
effect has been difficult to reproduce. Mike McKubre from SRI International,
in Menlo Park, Calif., a respected researcher who is influential among those
pursuing cold fusion, says that the effect can be reliably seen only once
the palladium electrodes are packed with deuterium at ratios of 100
percent-one deuterium atom for every palladium atom. His work shows that if
the ratio drops by as little as 10 points, to 90 percent, only 2
experimental runs in 12 produce excess heat, while all runs at a ratio of
100 percent produce excess heat.
And scientists are beginning to get a better handle on exactly how the
effect occurs. Stanislaw Szpak and colleagues from the Space and Naval
Warfare Systems Command have taken infrared video images of palladium
electrodes as they produce excess energy. It turns out that the heat is not
produced continuously over the entire electrode but only in hot spots that
erupt and then die on the electrode surface. This team also has evidence of
curious mini-explosions on the surface.
Fleischmann, who is still involved in cold fusion as an advisor to a number
of groups, feels vindicated. He told the conference: "I believe that the
work carried out thus far amply illustrates that there is a new and richly
varied field of research waiting to be explored." (Pons is no longer
involved in the field, having dropped from view after a laboratory he joined
in southern France ceased operations.)
For Peter Hagelstein, an electrical engineer at MIT who works on the theory
behind cold fusion and who chaired the August 2003 conference, the quality
of the papers was hugely significant. "It's obvious that there are effects
going on," he says. He and two colleagues believed the results were so
strong that they were worth drawing to the attention of the DOE, and late
last year they secured a meeting with the department's Decker.
It was a meeting that paid off dramatically. The review will give cold
fusion researchers a chance-perhaps their last-to show their mettle. The
department has yet to decide just what will be done and by whom. There is no
guarantee of funding or of future support. But for a discipline whose name
has become a byword for junk science, the DOE's review is a big opportunity.

 troverai le risposte per qualsiasi problema
NO, questa pratica, fin troppo abusata in politica, e assolutamente 
fuori luogo nella scienza, IMHO.
ciao Dario

 Later this month, the U.S. Department of Energy will receive a report from a
Si, ma il report non ha considerato sufficienti le prove. "intriguing" 
ma non convincenti.
Io non ho idee preconcette. Varie volte nella storia della scienza dei 
fenomeni inesplicabili hanno trovato una spiegazione, a volte senza 
bisogno di inventare nuove teorie, a volte rivedendo radicalmente le 
teorie esistenti.
Per ora il fenomeno non e' neanche chiaro se esiste.
Quello che pero' non mi piace e' leggere di presunti complotti, e che la 
fonte di energia presunta e' gia' bell'epronta insabbiata in qualche 
cassetto di qualche cattiva multinazionale. Si fa solo confusione.
ciao Dario
-----------------
Published online: 02 December 2004; | doi:10.1038/news041129-11
US review rekindles cold fusion debate
Geoff Brumfiel
Energy panel split over whether experiments produced power.
Claims of cold fusion are intriguing, but not convincing. That is the 
conclusion of an 18-member scientific panel tasked with reviewing 
research in the area.
The findings, which were released on 1 December by the US Department of 
Energy, rekindle a 15-year-old debate over whether nuclear fusion can 
occur at room temperature.
According to the report, the panel was "split approximately evenly" on 
the question of whether cold experiments were actually producing power 
in the form of heat. But members agreed that there is not enough 
evidence to prove that cold fusion has occurred, and they complained 
that much of the published work was poorly documented.
The review is a positive step for the field of cold fusion, according to 
David Nagel at George Washington University in Washington DC, who 
co-authored the summary of cold-fusion work that the panel reviewed. 
"Most scientists think that cold fusion is laughable, but when the dust 
settled, the researchers reviewing our work were evenly split," he says.
 
Others remain sceptical, however. "It is astonishing that the panel 
didn't find cold fusion convincing after almost 15 years of additional 
research," says Bob Park, a professor of physics at the University of 
Maryland, College Park, and author of Voodoo Science, a book about junk 
science. Park says that although the quality of research has improved, 
no one should buy into cold fusion just yet.
Hot stuff
Fusion commonly occurs in stars like the Sun, where hydrogen atoms meld 
together to form helium and release huge amounts of energy in the 
process. Scientists have long believed that fusion has the potential to 
be an enormous source of power here on Earth. However, no one has yet 
been able to control fusion reactions because they only occur at 
temperatures and pressures similar to those found in stars.
Or so scientists thought until 1989, when Stanley Pons and Martin 
Fleischmann of the University of Utah claimed to have created a new kind 
of fusion inside a small canister of water. Pons and Fleischmann claimed 
that when they ran an electrical current between two palladium plates 
separated by water containing deuterium, a heavy isotope of hydrogen, it 
created a small but measurable fusion reaction.
In a highly publicized press conference in Utah, the scientists claimed 
that this 'cold fusion' had the potential to revolutionize the world's 
energy production.
Pons and Fleischmann's claims were quickly debunked by other scientists, 
who pointed out numerous experimental errors in the measurements. But 
the idea of cold fusion lives on in movies and science fiction, and 
among a small cadre of researchers.
Those researchers finally caught the ear of the US energy secretary, 
Spencer Abraham, who commissioned the review in August 2003 from the 
department's science directorate.
Although the reviewers remained sceptical, they were nearly unanimous in 
their opinion that the energy department should fund well-thought-out 
proposals for cold fusion. Nagel says that he expects many in the long 
neglected field to submit research plans in the coming months. "I will 
be among them," he adds.