Talk:Cold fusion/tmp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
First generation electrolytic cold fusion cell created by researchers at the U.S. Navy SPAWAR Systems Center in San Diego, Calif.
First generation electrolytic cold fusion cell created by researchers at the U.S. Navy SPAWAR Systems Center in San Diego, Calif.

Cold fusion is the name for a nuclear fusion reaction that occurs well below the temperature required for thermonuclear reactions (typically millions of degrees Celsius). Such reactions may occur near room temperature and atmospheric pressure, and even in a relatively small-scale experiments.

In a narrower sense, "cold fusion" refers to a particular type of fusion reported to occur in electrolytic cells. Whether this phenomenon exists or not is the source of an active scientific controversy.

The term "cold fusion" was coined by Dr Paul Palmer of Brigham Young University in 1986 in an investigation of "geo-fusion", or the possible existence of fusion in a planetary core. It was brought into popular consciousness by the public controversy surrounding the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in March of 1989.

The subject has been of scientific interest since nuclear fusion was first understood. Nuclear fusion using deuterium yields large amounts of energy, uses an abundant fuel source, and produces only small amounts of manageable waste; thus a cheap and simple process of nuclear fusion would have great economic impact.

Contents

[edit] Introduction

The field and the name "Cold Fusion" started in 1989 when chemists Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton reported the production of excess heat in an electrolytic cell containing D2O "that could only be explained by a nuclear process." (Fleischmann 1989) (Pons 1990) Their results were replicated by some laboratories and not by others. Nevertheless, several influential physicists rejected the claims because the nuclear signatures were not consistent with those known to occur from the claimed reaction. (Huizenga 1993)

Conventionally initiated nuclear reactions involve the use of neutrons or application of high energy, sometimes using a plasma. When these conditions are applied to the deuterium fusion reaction, the process is called "hot fusion". On the other hand, reactions initiated by the "cold fusion" process occur in a unique solid structure without significant energy being applied. "Hot fusion" results in equal quantities of tritium and neutrons. In contrast, "cold fusion" produces mainly helium with very few neutrons and occasional tritium. Both methods produce large amounts of energy as heat. Therefore, both methods have the potential to provide clean energy using an essentially infinite source of fuel, although the "cold fusion" energy is cleaner than that resulting from "hot fusion". As of 2005, neither type of fusion appears close to commercial applications.

Although initial observations of cold fusion were made using an electrolytic cell in which the active material was palladium and the source of fuel was D2O, many other methods are now claimed to produce the same kind of nuclear reactions. In addition, the active material can be several other materials besides palladium, all of which need to have a unique structure and generally are present with nanosized dimensions. Evidence for a variety of nuclear processes have been presented including transmutation, fusion, and fission. For this reason, the terms "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" (LENR), "Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions" (CANR), and "Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" (CMNS) are now used to describe work in this area. Unfortunately, the nature of the nuclear active environment has not yet been identified. Many theories are being explored in order to identify a possible mechanism, although none have yet gained acceptance by conventional science.

[edit] History

In the 1920s, two German scientists, Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters, reported room-temperature transformation of hydrogen into helium by spontaneous nuclear catalysis involving finely-divided palladium. (Paneth 1926) Their claim was later retracted (Paneth 1927) as the authors acknowledged that the helium production they had measured was due to background from the air or the glassware they used.

In 1927, Swedish scientist John Tandberg said that he had fused hydrogen into helium in an electrolytic cell with palladium electrodes. On the basis of his work he applied for a Swedish patent for "a method to produce helium and useful reaction energy," and continued his experiments with heavy water after deuterium was discovered in 1932. Due to Paneth and Peters' retraction, Tandberg's patent application was eventually denied.

On March 23, 1989, the chemists Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton held a press conference and reported production of excess heat "that could only be explained by a nuclear process." This claim was particularly astonishing given the simplicity of the equipment, which was just a water electrolysis experiment consisting of a pair of electrodes connected to a battery and immersed in a jar of heavy water (D2O). The world's press responded with front-page items in most newspapers around the world. The scientists were interviewed by many in the Media and by Congress. Everyone recognized the immense beneficial implications of the Utah experiments, if they were correct, which caused scientists around the world to attempt replication within hours of the announcement.

On April 10 a team at Texas A&M University announced results of excess heat and later that day a team at the Georgia Institute of Technology announced neutron production. (Mallove 1991) Both results were widely reported on in the press. Not so well reported was the fact that both teams soon withdrew their results for lack of evidence. For the next six weeks competing claims, counterclaims, and suggested explanations kept the topic on the front pages, and led to what writers have referred to as "fusion confusion." It should be noted that many positive results were not withdrawn including subsequent work at Texas A&M by the same team. (Appleby 1989) (Appleby 1990)

At the end of May the Energy Research Advisory Board (a standing advisory committee in the U.S. Department of Energy) formed a special panel to investigate cold fusion. The report of the panel after five months' study was that there was no convincing evidence for cold fusion, and that such an effect "would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century." It specifically recommended against any special funding for cold fusion research, but was "sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system".(ERAB 1989) However, no submitted proposal was funded even though some met the guidelines.

Both critics and those attempting replications were frustrated by what they said was incomplete information released by the University of Utah. People speculated that Pons and Fleischmann withheld key details of the experiment, possibly as a prelude to obtaining a patent. In response, Fleischmann said at a meeting in April that all the necessary details had been given in the published paper. We now know that Pons and Fleischmann did not understand at that time what was needed to make the effect work so that successful replications, and there were a few, were largely the result of luck.

By the end of May much of the media attention had faded among the competing results and counterclaims. More significantly, the research effort decreased greatly. The skeptics claim that most attempts at replication failed and none produced definitive results. In fact, some experiments conducted by experienced electrochemists did produce positive results, and many of these results had a high signal to noise ratio.(Storms 1991) Most of the people who had positive results at that time continued their studies and provided important insights that have improved reproducibility and the quality of supporting evidence. This is not the result of biased, true believers continuing to be deceived, but of trained scientists who trusted what they saw with their instruments after much skeptical evaluation. This approach is identical to how all new discoveries are treated by science.

A National Cold Fusion Institute was established in 1989 by the state of Utah, and eventually published a paper showing that cold fusion produces tritium, which is proof that it is a nuclear process. (Will 1993) At about the same time, tritium production was reported by workers at Los Alamos National Laboratory (Storms 1990) , at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in India (Iyengar 1990), and at Texas A & M University (Packham 1989). Occasional tritium production has been detected by several laboratories since then. This radioactive element can only be produced by a nuclear reaction and it does not exist in nature at a sufficient concentration to explain the observations.

In September 1990, the National Institute published a tally of replications of cold fusion. (Will 1990) It included data from 92 research groups in 10 countries, and it listed positive results in five categories: heat, tritium, neutrons, gamma rays and helium-3. Reports came from groups at Los Alamos NL, Oak Ridge NL, Brookhaven NL, Naval Systems San Diego, BARC India, U. Rome, Case Western U., Texas A&M U., Stanford U., U. Minnesota, U. Rome, Hokkaido U. and many other leading laboratories. These replications along with hundreds of others were later published in peer-reviewed journals. More complete reviews were published at about the same time by a worker at LANL(Storms 1991) and by workers at Texas A&M(Bockris 1990) .

The Fusion/Energy Council of Utah sponsored a careful, in-depth analysis Fleischmann and Pons' data, which was published in 1991. (Hansen 1991) This review and a subsequent one (Melich 1993) concluded that excess heat reported in March 1989 is real.

[edit] Current research

Most disagreement over the validity of the results, that continue to the present day, ignores the fact that all of the demands by skeptics have been met. Nuclear products have been identified (Miles 2003) and related to the amount of energy produced, errors in calorimetry have been identified (Storms 2004) and reduced to insignificant levels, and the effect is now increasingly reproducible by people who understand the important variables. In addition, mechanisms have been identified that can explain aspects of the process. Ongoing work in 7 countries continues to strengthen each of these requirements, with companies being organized to commercialize some aspects of the phenomenon. Scientists continue to share their results at the International Conference on Cold Fusion, which has been held 12 times in various countries during the intervening 16 years.

[edit] Issues in the debate

Excess heat production is an important characteristic of the effect that has created the most criticism. This is understandable because calorimetry is a difficult measurement that is susceptible to systematic errors. In addition, the original measurements, as well as a few of the attempted reproduction studies, have been criticized for various errors. Nevertheless, evidence is available that is based on well-designed and well-understood precision calorimetry methods, for example Seebeck and flow calorimeters. For example, McKubre et al. (McKubre 1994) at SRI developed a state-of-the-art flow calorimeter that was used to study many samples that showed production of significant anomalous energy. Over 30 similar studies (Storms 2001) have observed the same general behavior as was reported by these workers. Of course, all of the positive results could be caused by various errors. This possibility has been explored in many papers, which have been reviewed and summarized by Storms(Storms 2000) . Although a few of the suggested errors might have affected a few studies, no error has been identified that can explain all of the positive results, especially those using well designed methods. At this time, researchers in the field feel confident that anomalous energy is produced regardless of its source. This conclusion is important regardless of whether nuclear reactions are the source or not.

For a nuclear reaction to be proposed as the source of energy, it is necessary to show that the amount of energy is related to the amount of a nuclear product. Until the work of Miles et al. (Miles 1993), various unexpected nuclear products had been detected but never in sufficient amounts. Miles et al. showed that the helium was generated when anomalous heat was measured and that the relationship between the two measurements was consistent with the amount of energy known to result from a d-d fusion reaction. Since then 5 other studies (Miles 2003) have observed the same relationship. Of course, some of the detected helium could have resulted from helium known to be in normal air. Also, the heat measurements could be wrong in just the right amount every time the measurements were made. Even though these possibilities could have been used to explain one study, it is unlikely that such an advantageous combination of error can explain all of the results, especially when active efforts were made to reduce these errors. At the present time, researchers in the field believe that heat and helium are related, but the source of the helium is still to be determined. In other words, the helium may not result from d-d fusion.

Image:ColdFusionAutoradiograph.jpg
An autoradiograph showing the effects of tritium from a cold fusion experiment at the Neutron Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay, India

Besides helium, other nuclear products are detected in much smaller quantities. Early in the history, great effort was made to detect neutrons, an expected nuclear product from the d-d fusion reaction. Except for occasional bursts, the emission rate was found to be near the limit of detection or completely absent. This fact was used to reject the initial claim. It is now believed that the few neutrons are caused by a secondary nuclear reaction, possibily having nothing to do with the helium producing reaction. Tritium is another expected product of d-d fusion, which was sought. Too little tritium was detected so that once again the original claims were inconsistent with expectations. Nevertheless, the amount of tritium detected could not be explained by any conventional process after all of the possibilities had been completely explored. The source of tritium is still unknown although it clearly result from a nuclear reaction that is initiated within the apparatus. Various nuclear products normally associated with d-d fusion also have been detected as energetic emissions, but at very low rates. Clearly, unusual nuclear processes are occurring in material where none should occur.

Finally, the presence of heavy elements having unnatural isotopic ratios and in unexpected large amounts are detected under some conditions. These are the so called transmutation products. Work in Japan (Iwamura 2004) (Iwamura 2003) (Iwamura 2002) (Iwamura 2002b) (Iwamura 2000) has opened an entirely new aspect to the phenomenon by showing that impurity elements in palladium, through which D2 is caused to pass, are converted to heavier elements to which 2D, 4D or 6D (deuterons) have been added. The claims have been replicated in Japan and similar efforts are underway at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL).

In spite of these well documented and replicated observations, a recent review of the topic by the United States Department of Energy (DoE) came to mixed and mainly negative conclusions about the reality of the claims. (DoE 2004) (Storms 2005) In keeping with this negative opinion, many journals including Nature do not accept submissions related to cold fusion, and Scientific American has often attacked the subject. In contrast, other prestigious journals such the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics continue to publish well done studies on the subject.

[edit] Other kinds of fusion

This article focuses on fusion in electrolytic cells. Other forms of fusion have been studied by scientists. Some are "cold" in the sense that no part of the reaction is actually hot (except for the reaction products), some are "cold" in the sense that the energies required are low and the bulk of the material is at a relatively low temperature, and some are "hot", involving reactions which create macroscopic regions of very high temperature and pressure.

Locally cold fusion :

  • Muon-catalyzed fusion is a well-established and reproducible fusion process which occurs at low temperatures. It has been studied in detail by Steven Jones in the early 1980s. Because of the energy required to create muons, it is not able to produce net energy.

Generally cold, locally hot fusion :

  • In Cluster impact fusion, microscopic droplets of heavy water (on the order of 100-1000 molecules) are accelerated to collide with a target, so that their temperature at impact reaches at most 105 kelvin, 10,000 times smaller than the temperature required for hot fusion. In 1989, Friedlander and his coworkers observed 1010 more fusion events than expected with standard fusion theory. Recent research ([1]) suggests that the calculation of effective temperature may have failed to account for certain molecular effects which raise the effective collision temperature, so that this is a microscopic form of hot fusion.
  • In sonoluminescence, acoustic shock waves create temporary bubbles that collapse shortly after creation, producing very high temperatures and pressures. In 2002, Rusi P. Taleyarkhan explored the possibility that bubble fusion occurs in those collapsing bubbles. If this is the case, it is because the temperature and pressure are sufficiently high to produce hot fusion.
  • The Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor is a tabletop device in which fusion occurs. This fusion comes from high effective temperatures produced by electrostatic acceleration of ions. The device can be built inexpensively, but it too is unable to produce a net power output.

Plasma fusion :

Several of these systems are "nonequilibrium systems", in which very high temperatures and pressures are produced in a relatively small region adjacent to material of much lower temperature. In his doctoral thesis for Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Todd Rider did a theoretical study of all non-equilibrium fusion systems. He demonstrated that all such systems will leak energy at a rapid rate due to Bremsstrahlung, radiation produced when electrons in the plasma hit other electrons or ions at a cooler temperature and suddenly decelerate. The problem is not as pronounced in a hot plasma because the range of temperatures, and thus the magnitude of the deceleration, is much lower.

[edit] References

  1. ↑  Fleischmann, M., S. Pons, and M. Hawkins, electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989. 261: p. 301 and errata in Vol. 263. [2]
  2. ↑  Pons, S. and M. Fleischmann, Calorimetric measurements of the palladium/deuterium system: fact and fiction. Fusion Technol., 1990. 17: p. 669.
  3. ↑  Huizenga, J.R., Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century. second ed. 1993, New York: Oxford University Press. 319.
  4. ↑  Paneth, F. and K. Peters, On the transmutation of hydrogen to helium. Naturwiss., 1926. 43: p. 956 (in German).
  5. ↑  Paneth, F., The transmutation of hydrogen into helium. Nature (London), 1927. 119: p. 706.
  6. ↑  Mallove, E., Fire From Ice. 1991, NY: John Wiley. [3]
  7. ↑  Appleby, A.J., et al. Evidence for Excess Heat Generation Rates During Electrolysis of D2O in LiOD Using a Palladium Cathode-A Microcalorimetric Study. in Workshop on Cold Fusion Phenomena. 1989. Santa Fe, NM.
  8. ↑  Appleby, A.J., et al. Anomalous Calorimetric Results During Long-Term Evolution of Deuterium on Palladium from Alkaline Deuteroxide Electrolyte. in The First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion. 1990. University of Utah Research Park, Salt Lake City, Utah: National Cold Fusion Institute.
  9. ↑  ERAB, Report of the Cold Fusion Panel to the Energy Research Advisory Board. 1989, Department of Energy, DOE/S-0073: Washington, DC. [4] [5]
  10. ↑  Storms, E., Review of experimental observations about the cold fusion effect. Fusion Technol., 1991. 20: p. 433.
  11. ↑  Will, F.G., K. Cedzynska, and D.C. Linton, Reproducible tritium generation in electrochemical cells employing palladium cathodes with high deuterium loading. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993. 360: p. 161. [6]
  12. ↑  Storms, E. and C.L. Talcott, Electrolytic tritium production. Fusion Technol., 1990. 17: p. 680.
  13. ↑  Iyengar, P.K., et al., Bhabha Atomic Research Centre studies on cold fusion. Fusion Technol., 1990. 18: p. 32. [7]
  14. ↑  Packham, N.J.C., et al., Production of tritium from D2O electrolysis at a palladium cathode. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1989. 270: p. 451.
  15. ↑  Will, F.G., Groups Reporting Cold Fusion Evidence. 1990, National Cold Fusion Institute: Salt Lake City, UT. [8]
  16. ↑  Bockris, J., G.H. Lin, and N.J.C. Packham, A review of the investigations of the Fleischmann-Pons phenomena. Fusion Technol., 1990. 18: p. 11.
  17. ↑  Hansen, W.N. Report to the Utah State Fusion/Energy Council on the Analysis of Selected Pons Fleischmann Calorimetric Data. in Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, "The Science of Cold Fusion". 1991. Como, Italy: Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna, Italy. [9]
  18. ↑  Melich, M.E. and W.N. Hansen. Back to the Future, The Fleischmann-Pons Effect in 1994. in Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1993. Lahaina, Maui: Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. [10]
  19. ↑  Miles, M. Correlation Of Excess Enthalpy And Helium-4 Production: A Review. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org. [11]
  20. ↑  Storms, E., Calorimetry 101 for cold fusion. 2004, www.LENR-CANR.org. [12]
  21. ↑  McKubre, M.C.H., et al., Isothermal Flow Calorimetric Investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd Systems. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1994. 368: p. 55. [13]
  22. ↑  Storms, E., Cold Fusion: An Objective Assessment. 2001. [14]
  23. ↑  Storms, E., A critical evaluation of the Pons-Fleischmann effect: Part 2. Infinite Energy, 2000. 6(32): p. 52. [15]
  24. ↑  Miles, M.H., et al., Correlation of excess power and helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes. J. Electroanal. Chem., 1993. 346: p. 99. [16]
  25. ↑  Iwamura, Y., et al. Observation of Nuclear Transmutation Reactions induced by D2 Gas Permeation through Pd Complexes. in ICCF-11, International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2004. Marseilles, France: www.LENR-CANR.org. [17]
  26. ↑  Iwamura, Y., et al. Low Energy Nuclear Transmutation In Condensed Matter Induced By D2 Gas Permeation Through Pd Complexes: Correlation Between Deuterium Flux And Nuclear Products. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. Cambridge, MA: LENR-CANR.org. [18]
  27. ↑  Iwamura, Y., et al. Observation of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Induced By D2 Gas Permeation Through Pd Complexes,. in The 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2002. Beijing, China: Tsinghua Univ. Press. [19]
  28. ↑  Iwamura, Y., M. Sakano, and T. Itoh, Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. A, 2002. 41: p. 4642. [20]
  29. ↑  Iwamura, Y., T. Itoh, and M. Sakano. Nuclear Products and Their Time Dependence Induced by Continuous Diffusion of Deuterium Through Multi-layer Palladium Containing Low Work Function Material. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy. [21]
  30. ↑  D.o.E., U.S. Department of Energy Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. 2004, DE: Washington, DC. [22]; See also: D.o.E., U.S. Department of Energy Cold Fusion Review Reviewer Comments. 2004, DE: Washington, DC. [23]
  31. ↑  Storms, E., A Response to the Review of Cold Fusion by the DoE. 2005, Lattice Energy, LLC: Santa Fe, NM. [24] [25]
  32. ↑  Kuhn, T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 1970, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[edit] Cold fusion in fiction

[edit] See also

  • List of energy topics : list identifies articles and categories that relate to energy.
  • Alchemy : early protoscientific practice combining elements of chemistry, physics, astrology, art, semiotics, metallurgy, medicine,and mysticism.
  • Pathological science : a term coined by Irving Langmuir to describe experimental results that are close to margin of error, that are explained by "fantastic theories" and that the majority of scientists in the field think are incorrect. Skeptics think that cold fusion fits this pattern, but cold fusion researchers think it does not meet any of the criteria Langmuir listed.
  • Protoscience : any new area of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established.
  • Transmutation : the conversion of one object into another.
  • List of holy grails

[edit] Patents

As of 2001, however, the US patent office has been rejecting patent applications whose sole utility is the production of excess heat by cold fusion alone. The rejections have been based on the fact that applicants have not been able to provide reproduceable results. See MPEP 2107.01 for a more complete discussion of the "utility" requirement for a patent (i.e. 35 USC 101).

[edit] Books

  • Krivit, Steven ; Winocur, Nadine. The Rebirth of Cold Fusion. Los Angeles, CA, Pacific Oaks Press, 2004 ISBN 0-9760545-8-2.
    • A book documenting the cold fusion saga from a "pro-cold fusion" perspective, backed with research and interviews from cold fusion researchers around the world.
  • Beaudette, Charles. Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed. Concord, N.H.: Infinite Energy Press, 2000. ISBN 0-9678548-1-4.
    • A more recent scientific account defending the view that cold fusion research prevailed.
  • Close, Frank E..Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1991. ISBN 0-691-08591-9; ISBN 0-14-015926-6.
  • Huizenga, John R. Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century. Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester Press, 1992. ISBN 1-878822-07-1; ISBN 0-19-855817-1.
    • The above two books are other skeptical examinations from the scientific mainstream. Huizenga was co-chair of the DoE panel set up to investigate the Pons/Fleischmann experiment.
  • Mallove, Eugene. Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor. Concord, N.H.: Infinite Energy Press, 1991. ISBN 1-892925-02-8.
    • An early account from the pro-cold-fusion perspective.
  • Mizuno, Tadahiko. Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion. Concord, N.H.: Infinite Energy Press, 1998. ISBN 1-892925-00-1.
  • Park, Robert L. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-19-513515-6.
    • Park gives an account of cold fusion and its history from the skeptical perspective.

[edit] Papers and reports

[edit] Journals and publications

[edit] Websites and repositories

[edit] Recent news

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/l/Talk%7ECold_fusion_tmp_c7aa.html"