Cold Fusion?!

[chatlack]

Friends, it seems that in science society there have been some improvements going on about the subject, cold fusion. Fleischmann and Pons's experiments became partially accepted at least...

What do you have in mind?

Have you had any satisfying cold fusion experiment?

[Tormod]

"Partially accepted"? They became the laughing stock of the entire scientific world. Which parts were accepted?

[Farsight]

This seems a pretty good wiki article, Tormud:

 

Cold fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

In your view is it slanted in favour of Cold Fusion?

 

The phrase pathological disbelief sprang out and caught my eye. I think that's something I know something about.

[chatlack]

Hmmzz...I also suspected a bias but they gave some explanations somehow convincing.

I have just caught the subject, I was away from scientific material, so I wanted to ask.

Really no result at all?

[Pyrotex]

Hmmzz...Really no result at all?

The basic and most important result that would confirm fusion is taking place is neutron emission. If fusion occurs at all, there must be neutron emission. It doesn't matter "how" the fusion is triggered.

 

Neutrons were detected only at the trace values you would expect from background reactions and radioactivity.

 

Nobody who has repeated the experiment has gotten significant numbers of neutrons. Pity.

[Rade]

The basic and most important result that would confirm fusion is taking place is neutron emission. If fusion occurs at all, there must be neutron emission. It doesn't matter "how" the fusion is triggered. Neutrons were detected only at the trace values you would expect from background reactions and radioactivity. Nobody who has repeated the experiment has gotten significant numbers of neutrons. Pity.

Have you seen research of Dr. Hagelstein at MIT--not sure he views neutrons as being "required" ? :

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinmodelsfora.pdf

 

Also, you may find this MIT report on history of cold fusion to be of interest (rather long, but lots of information not widely reported):

http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf

[Qfwfq]

It seems risible if no one modelled the interaction with the lattice in trying to understand the Fleischmann and Pons claim.

 

Anyway a method of cold fusion that does work, only it fails so far to reach breakeven, is by muon catalysis. Not many talk about it because there is no controversy but neither much hope of it becoming useful.

[Farsight]

Oh wow, and it's been kicking aorund for fifty years. Thanks Qfwfq.

 

Muon-catalyzed fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Essay]

Friends, it seems that in science society there have been some improvements going on about the subject, cold fusion. Fleischmann and Pons's experiments became partially accepted at least...

What do you have in mind?

Have you had any satisfying cold fusion experiment?

I remember reading (and photocopying) the Fleischman & Pons article in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry & Interfacial Electrochemistry--back in '87 [or words to that effect] and 60 minutes just ran a segment on further developments:

Something to the effect that we can get extra heat, but it's unpredictable (in both time and amount).

DARPA was quoted with something about "anomolous" excess heat.

===

 

Okay the cold-fusion idea of drawing the deuteron into the palladium lattice is sound enough physics or electrochemistry. The trick is how to get two deuterons to try and occupy the same position within the lattice.

 

What about taking that saturated palladium and putting it in an NMR? Couldn't we get the deuterons to resonate so that they fused?

 

My first thought was some sort of sudden positive charge to push the deuterons farther into the lattice (or negative charge from the other side--to pull them farther in) hoping that some of them will end up colliding and fusing.

 

But I think the NMR idea may be more effective.

 

Thoughts? :phones:

[InfiniteNow]

There was a special just this evening on 60 Minutes about how this work is getting renewed vigor with many positive results. The challenge is that they are struggling to explain them, and consistency seems to be an issue, as well.

 

Watch for yourself here:

More Than Junk Science - CBS News Video

[Essay]

There was a special just this evening on 60 Minutes about how this work is getting renewed vigor with many positive results. The challenge is that they are struggling to explain them, and consistency seems to be an issue, as well.

 

Watch for yourself here:

More Than Junk Science - CBS News Video

Thanks, InfiniteNow, for the link!

I remember reading (and photocopying) the Fleischman & Pons article in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry & Interfacial Electrochemistry--back in '87 [or words to that effect] and "60 Minutes" just ran a segment on further developments:

Something to the effect that we can get extra heat, but it's unpredictable (in both time and amount).

DARPA was quoted with something about "anomolous" excess heat.

===

 

Okay the cold-fusion idea of drawing the deuteron into the palladium lattice is sound enough physics--or electrochemistry. The trick is how to get two deuterons to try and occupy the same position within the lattice--fusing.

 

What about taking that saturated palladium and putting it in an NMR? Couldn't we get the deuterons to resonate so that they fused?

 

My first thought was some sort of sudden positive charge to push the deuterons farther into the lattice (or negative charge from the other side--to pull them farther in) hoping that some of them will end up colliding and fusing.

 

But I think the NMR idea may be more effective...

...or maybe a combination of the two techniques--to manipulate the deuterons.

 

Thoughts?

[Rade]

See the discussion in this forum thread about recent developments in cold fusion:

 

Use of CR-39 Detectors Heats up "Cold Fusion"

 

The USA Navy in 2009 published in the same journal where years ago Einstein published where they claim experimental evidence of thermal neutrons with energy between 9-15 MeV formed during cold fusion type experiment--the paper is cited in the thread above.

 

The (April 19, 2009) "60 Minutes" TV program cited a recent USA government document where the conclusion was that excess heat via cold fusion is now established fact after review of many, many different experiments using many different types of initial conditions. But there is not at all any consensus the dynamics of how the initial fusion reaction begins--what isotopes are fused--what type of input energy wave--what type of electrodes to use--what type of liquid the electrodes put into--etc, etc ??....

 

I suggest the following for anyone with interest in the topic and they want to get up-to-date on the 100's cold fusion experiments since Fleischman and Pons in 1989:

 

"The Science of the Cold Fusion Phenomenon", 2006, Hideo Kozima, Elsevier

 

"The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction", 2007, Edmund Storms, World Scientific

 

"Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook", 2008, Jan Marwan, Steven B. Krivit, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.

[Moontanman]

I saw the 60 minutes show last night and they seemed to think the way the palladium was manufactured had an influence on it's crystal lattice and that had an effect on the release of energy. It would be typical if the whole idea of cold fusion depended on some unusual configuration of crystal lattices in the metal and all this time they had been using a hit or miss quality metal caused the works sometimes/sometimes not deal.

[Essay]

I saw the 60 minutes show last night and they seemed to think the way the palladium was manufactured had an influence on it's crystal lattice and that had an effect on the release of energy. It would be typical if the whole idea of cold fusion depended on some unusual configuration of crystal lattices in the metal and all this time they had been using a hit or miss quality metal caused the works sometimes/sometimes not deal.

60 Minutes said, of the many such experiment, that excess heat often is produced--

but that it cannot be predicted.

The excess heat is variable in amount, inception, and duration.

While this should be great fodder for an article in The Journal of Irreproducible Results

The Journal of Irreproducible Results: ISSN 0022-2038

Publisher: Park Forest South, Ill. [etc.] Society for Basic Irreproducible Research.

Note: Official organ of the Society for Basic Irreproducible Research.

URL for this item Journal of Irreproducible Results

I still think this variability is trying to tell us something!

 

...and not about the quality of the palladium electrode--sorry Moontan....

Doesn't this sound like an equilibrium--being held just below the threshhold of activation energy--where occasionally, randomly, the reactants will spontaneously find their way over the hump, of the threshhold of activation, and actually react?

 

Please realize that I don't care about the "imaging" part of the NMR.

It is only the NMR's capacity to tunably align the spin of protons that gives it the ability to affect the reaction rate of deuterons held within the lattice. As the spins relax, some of the protons become invisible to others, and this should drive some rearrangement within the lattice--increasing the likelihood of fusion as deuterons "attempt" to occupy the same lattice niche simultaneously.

 

I think we need to expose the loaded (or loading) palladium electrode to an NMR field--to increase the reaction rate--causing fusion.

I'm suggesting that we could push the deuteron fusion reaction over that threshhold--to fusion--by using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance to increase the likelihood that the D+ nuclei interact; especially if done while the deuterons are loading into the palladium lattice.

 

I suspect that the neutron also goes through a bit of instability as the proton's alignment relaxes, so....

The deuterium nuclei are already unstable--being held in the palladium lattice. All we need to do us push that instability a little more--with the NMR--to get fusion.

 

~

 

p.s. MTM, probably some nanoengineering of the electrode will enhance the loading and the exposure to NMR fields--increasing loadability and fusion rate.

[Rade]

It is possible that the initial fusion reaction that occurs in the typical cold fusion device as used by the Navy is not initiated as a D-D type fusion reaction.

 

In the book I mention above by Kozima, he offers an alternative explanation that appears to have merit. He calls it: Trapped Neutron Catalysed Fusion [TNCF Model].

 

In a nutshell, the TNCF model suggests the fusion process occurs within spaces of metals such as Pd that have an affinity for hydrogen, both H (the proton) and D (deuterium). Next the TNCF uses the fact that neutrons constantly hit the earth, and that some of these background neutrons must be within any cold fusion set-up--that is, some must be within the Pd lattice along with the added D. So, with the background neutron [N] in close packing to a D [NP] more or less randomly, the TNCF model suggests that low energy input in the KeV range can result in the background N to become a thermal neutron (Nt) and fuse with D to form tritium [NPN]. So the reaction is: (Nt) + D = tritium-energized(6.98 KeV) + gamma (6.25 MeV). Now, once this tritium is formed, it then can undergo a second reaction at the Pd electrode as such:T-energized + D = Helium-4(3.5 MeV) + high energy neutron (14.1 MeV). So, this high energy neutron with 14.1 MeV on average is right within the range of what was predicted by the Navy experiment.

 

If this hypothesis is correct it helps to explain the random observation of the excess heat event in cold fusion type experiments--the event may depend on random interactions of background neutrons hitting the earth and then random packing with deuterium within Pb lattice. Sometimes it works that excess heat appears, sometimes not, and when it works it is as if a probability of intensity from experiment to experiment.

 

I also agree that the internal structure of the Pd lattice, or what ever metal is used as the cathode for deuterium packing, could be very important. It seems logical that how the Pd electrode is made could influence the lattice structure to change conditions (such as size of interstitial spaces) for the packing of the atoms involved in the initial fusion reaction, whatever they may be. And I like the comment above of using NMR waves to attempt to bring the atoms within close-packing in the metal lattice structure. In fact, a pulsed wave function of input energy is exactly what is being used by the company interviewed on 60 minutes that claims observations of excess heat in a cold fusion design.

 

I for one find the topic of cold fusion worthy of scientific debate--the upside potential to humans is just too important to sweep it under the rug as wacky science, as was the result after 1989 announcement by Fleischmann and Pons. And now, with numerous (>100) experiments showing evidence of excess heat and release of expected fusion products as predicted by F&P, and the 2009 Navy publication of release of thermal neutrons (9-15 MeV range) during a cold fusion experiment in a well respected peer reviewed journal in Europe, Naturwissenschaften, (it is where Einstein once published), I believe the rug has been removed and the scientific community is faced with the somber reality that they need to move forward to offer explanation of the facts observed, and not claim such facts not possible.

[CraigD]

And now, with numerous (>100) experiments showing evidence of excess heat and release of expected fusion products as predicted by F&P, and the 2009 Navy publication of release of thermal neutrons (9-15 MeV range) during a cold fusion experiment in a well respected peer reviewed journal in Europe, Naturwissenschaften, (it is where Einstein once published), I believe the rug has been removed and the scientific community is faced with the somber reality that they need to move forward to offer explanation of the facts observed, and not claim such facts not possible.

We discussed Mosier-Boss et al’s Naturwissenschaften paper, “Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd–D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons”, in 9128. It’s an interesting, and IMHO under-read paper. It’s important to note, however, that it isn’t about and makes no claims of unexplained excess heat, nor use of cold fusion as a practical power source.

 

I think the subject of “cold fusion” is a confusing one, and one that professional scientists are trepid to explore, in most part because of the embarrassment caused twenty-some years ago by Fleischmann and Pons’s announcement claiming its likely near-term commercial viability. This optimism, which was initially shared by many, proved premature, resulting in many accusations that Fleischmann and Pons were “sloppy”, “unethical”, and “fradulent”, though IMHO pressure from University of Utah administrators deserves most of the blame (see references from the wikipedia article “Martin Fleishmann”). The subsequent credulous embracing – that is, accepting as proven fact – of these old, discredited announcement by various fringe science groups have further served to motivate career scientists to approach the subject very discretely or not at all.

 

A major problem, as I see it, with much credulous investigation of cold fusion power is that it doesn’t begin with sound theoretical speculation about how an effect that might be usable in producing practical power via cold fusion might occur, but rather produces results with poorly controlled, often un-reproducible experiments, then challenges disinterested, credible scientists to explain why they are not evidence that practical cold fusion power is possible. This isn't, I think, a very good way to do science.

 

It’s important, I think, to keep in mind that the occurrence in “tabletop nature” of conditions in which nuclear fusion occur that are well theoretically explained and experimental verified – high temperature/pressure, muon catilization, etc. – is not impossible, only statistically unlikely. Temperature and pressure are defined as average kinetic energies of and interaction between atoms and molecules, so in a large low temperature sample, some atoms have a very high energy, and may undergo fusion. The natural occurrence of muons is due primarily to collisions of high-energy cosmic ray protons with atoms in the Earth’s atmosphere, so is effectively random, so if you properly watch a suitable target, such as a super cold block of ice, you’ll observe muon-catalyzed fusion.

 

The problem with using these phenomena to generate useful power is not that they don’t occur, but that, in the over 50 years they’ve been studied, no way to have them occur in dense enough concentrations have been discovered.

[Haech]

Wow... There are so many talented/knowledgeable people are on this forum. A lot of the reaction theory goes over my head, so I hope that I won't embarrass myself too much as I'm pretty much a neophyte when it comes to physics.

 

Would anyone mind mentioning which fusion reaction idea in the works right now show the most progress? I read Thomas Friedman's account of the laser induced fusion some time ago and tried to investigate via wikipedia, but I simply don't have the skills and knowledge to tell everything apart. In addition, how close do you think we are toward a sustained reaction?