Atlantis Online
March 29, 2024, 10:12:13 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Towering Ancient Tsunami Devastated the Mediterranean
http://www.livescience.com/environment/061130_ancient_tsunami.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Creating Cold Fusion

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creating Cold Fusion  (Read 234 times)
0 Members and 45 Guests are viewing this topic.
Adam Hawthorne
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4250



« on: July 02, 2007, 01:20:34 am »



Cold fusion cell at the US Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego (2005)

Cold fusion is the name for effects supposed to be nuclear reactions occurring near room temperature and pressure using relatively simple and low-energy-input devices. When two light nuclei are forced to fuse, they form a heavier nucleus and release a large amount of energy.

Cold fusion is the popular term used to refer to what is properly called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), part of the field of "condensed matter nuclear science" (CMNS).[1] Cold fusion was brought into popular consciousness by the controversy surrounding the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in March 1989. For the next 17 years, efforts to replicate the effect had mixed success and panels organized by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), the first in 1989 and the second in 2004, did not find the evidence convincing enough to justify a federally-funded program. They recommended further research. More claims of experimental success were reported, primarily in non-mainstream publications.

In 2002, Mosier-Boss and Szpak, researchers in the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego, developed a new experimental technique called codeposition, involving electroplating cathodes with a particular ratio of palladium and deuterium. In 2006, these experiments have produced evidence of high-energy nuclear reactions concentrated near the probe surface.[2] Based on this work, two other teams have reported similar findings at the American Physical Society meeting of March 2007 (sessions A31 and B31) although interpretations vary
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Adam Hawthorne
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4250



« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2007, 01:22:39 am »



The electrolysis cell

Overview

When water is electrolyzed in a closed cell surrounded by a calorimeter, all energy transfer can be accounted for using the theories of electricity, thermodynamics and chemistry: the electrical input energy, the heat accumulated in the cell, the chemical storage of energy and the heat leaving the cell balance out. When the cathode is made of palladium and heavy water is used instead of light water, the same conservation of energy should be observed.

What Fleischmann and Pons said was that the heat measured by their calorimeter significantly exceeded their expectations in some cases. They calculated a power density over 1.000 watts/cm3 based on the volume of the cathode, a value too high to be explained by chemical reactions alone.[4] They concluded that the effect must be nuclear, although they lacked evidence for it.

Others have tried to replicate their observations. Many failed, but some succeeded, using a variety of setups. They reported high power densities in peer reviewed journals such as the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics[5] and the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry.[6] In the most recent review of the field by the DoE, some researchers believed that the experimental evidence was sufficient to establish the scientific validity of the excess heat effect, but others rejected the evidence, and the panel was evenly split on the issue (a significant change compared to the 1989 DoE panel, which rejected it entirely).

The search for products of nuclear fusion has resulted in conflicting results, leading two thirds of the 2004 DoE reviewers to reject the possibility of nuclear reactions. One additional reason for many to exclude a nuclear origin for the effect is that current physics theory cannot explain how fusion could occur under such conditions. In 2005, Alan Widom and Lewis Larsen proposed a theory that could explain the experimental results using known physics but not utilizing fusion as the explanation. In their theory, the effect would instead be generated by the weak interaction instead of the nuclear force involved in fusion.[7] The name "cold fusion" would then be inappropriate, and the potential power of the source would be lower.

The US Patent Office accepted a patent in cold fusion in 2001. Still, current knowledge of the effect, if it exists, is insufficient to expect commercial applications soon. The 2004 DoE panel identified several areas that could be further studied using appropriate scientific methods.

Report Spam   Logged
Adam Hawthorne
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4250



« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2007, 01:26:49 am »



An infrared picture of hot spots on the cathode of a cold fusion cell. Presented by Szpak at ICCF10


The cold fusion researchers presenting their review document to the 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion said that the possibility of calorimetric errors has been carefully considered, studied, tested and ultimately rejected. They explained that, in 1989, Fleischmann and Pons used an open cell from which energy was lost in a variety of ways: the differential equation used to determine excess energy was awkward and subject to misunderstanding, and the method had an error of 1% or better. Recognizing these issues, SRI International and other research teams used a flow calorimeter around closed cells: the governing equations became trivial, and the method had an error of 0.5% or better. Over 50 experiments conducted by SRI International showed excess power well above the accuracy of measurement. Arata and Zhang observed excess heat power averaging 80 watts over 12 days. The researchers also said that the amount of energy reported in some of the experiments appeared to be too great compared to the small mass of the material in the cell for it to be stored by any chemical process. Their control experiments using light water never showed excess heat.[11] While Storms says that light water is an impurity that can kill the effect,[12] Miley and others have reported low energy nuclear reactions with light water.[13]

When asked about the evidence for power that cannot be attributed to an ordinary chemical or solid state source, the 2004 DoE panel was evenly split. Many of the reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented to the DoE panel. The reviewers who did not find the production of excess power convincing said that excess power in the short term is not the same as net energy production over the entire time of an experiment, that all possible chemical and solid state causes of excess heat had not been investigated and eliminated as an explanation, that the magnitude of the effect had not increased after over a decade of work, and that production over a period of time is a few percent of the external power applied and hence calibration and systematic effects could account for the purported effect.

Other purported evidence of heat generation not reviewed by the DoE included the detection of infrared hot spots (see picture in the lead section), the detection of mini-explosions by a piezoelectric substrate, and the observation of discrete sites exhibiting molten-like features that require substantial energy expenditure
« Last Edit: July 02, 2007, 01:33:52 am by Adam » Report Spam   Logged
Adam Hawthorne
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4250



« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2007, 01:31:14 am »



A CR-39 detector showing traces of nuclear activity in cold fusion experiments at SSC San Diego.

Nuclear products

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 nuclear products. When asked about evidence of low energy nuclear reactions, twelve of the eighteen members of the 2004 DoE panel did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence, five found the evidence "somewhat convincing" and one was entirely convinced.

If the excess heat were generated by the hot fusion of two deuterium atoms, the most probable outcome according to current theory, would be the generation of either tritium and a proton, or a 3He and a neutron. The level of protons, tritium, neutrons and 3He actually observed in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment had been higher than current theory predicted, but well below the level expected in view of the heat generated, implying that these reactions cannot explain it.

If the excess heat were generated by the hot fusion of two deuterium atoms into 4He, a reaction which is normally extremely rare, 4He and gamma rays would be generated. Miles et al. reported that 4He was indeed generated in quantities consistent with the excess heat, but no studies have shown levels of gamma rays consistent with the excess heat.[17] Current nuclear theory cannot explain these results. Researchers are puzzled that some experiments produced heat without 4He.[18] Critics note that great care must be used to prevent contamination by helium naturally present in atmospheric air.

Although there appears to be evidence of anomalous transmutations and isotope shifts near the cathode surface in some experiments, cold fusion researchers generally consider that these anomalies are not the ash associated with the primary excess heat effect.

In 2006, nuclear activity was demonstrated by the use of standard nuclear track detectors made of CR-39. Photographs show scarring of the plastic disks, consistent with high energy nuclear radiation. The intensity and pattern of the scarring appears to rule out anomalous sources such as background radiation as the cause. A project has been set up to facilitate its independent replication
Report Spam   Logged
Adam Hawthorne
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 4250



« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2007, 01:33:19 am »

Reproducibility of the result

The cold fusion researchers presenting their review document to the 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion said that the observation of excess heat has been reproduced, that it can be reproduced at will under the proper conditions, and that many of the reasons for failure to reproduce it have been discovered. Yet, most reviewers stated that the effects are not repeatable.

In 1989, the DoE panel said: "Even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary. As a result, it is difficult convincingly to resolve all cold fusion claims since, for example, any good experiment that fails to find cold fusion can be discounted as merely not working for unknown reasons.".[24] While repeatability is critical for commercial applications, independent reproduction is the criterion used in the scientific method.

Cold fusion supporter Julian Schwinger said that it is not uncommon to have difficulty in reproducing a new phenomenon that involves ill-understood macroscopic control of a microscopic mechanism. As examples, he gave the onset of microchip studies, and the discovery of high-temperature superconductivity
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy