Cold Fusion?

[Orb]

Is cold fusion still considered to be impossible because it breaks the laws of physics? I tried to do a little research on the subject, but with no physics background its hard for me to distinguish between fact and fiction. And there seems to be a lot of woo theories out there.

The reason I ask is because I have seen a few articles on the subject in Make Magazine (no link b/c subscription needed) and having read the tread in this forum about reaching the hottest temperature ever on earth
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53360 it seem it might actually be possible?

If someone more knowledgeable on this subject has time to enlighten me, I would very much appreciate it.

 

[drkitten]

Is cold fusion still considered to be impossible because it breaks the laws of physics?

I don't think cold fusion has ever been considered to be impossible or to break the laws of physics.

The problem is that Pons and Fleishmann (the original cold fusion proponents) were either incompetents or frauds (or more likely both) -- and what they claimed to observe was impossible according to the laws of physics. This makes any attempt to duplicate or extend their findings a probable waste of time. If cold fusion is possible, it will take a radically new approach to show it.

 

[.13.]

I don't think cold fusion has ever been considered to be impossible or to break the laws of physics.

I thought it did break the laws (atleast currently known laws) of physics. Because of positive charges of protons hydrogen atoms need quite an energy to get close enough together for strong nuclear force to exceed the electromagnetic force.

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't think cold fusion has ever been considered to be impossible or to break the laws of physics.

The problem is that Pons and Fleishmann (the original cold fusion proponents) were either incompetents or frauds (or more likely both)

Actually, the problem was that Pons and Fleischmann tried to go around the system. Had they just submitted their work for publication before their silly press conference, many of the blatent problems they had would have been fleshed out, and they wouldn't have been able to boast such grandeose claims.

They may have gotten something published, but it would have been far less controversial, and even had they been shown wrong, they would have been merely recognized as mistaken, which isn't all that big of a deal in science. Many (including me) have had work that has been subsequently shown to be in error, either because of something that was missed in the experiments, or in the interpretation. You don't need to be incompetent nor a fraud to get something wrong in scientific research.

Consider the life on Mars folks. Despite making a highly controversial claim with questionable analysis, there isn't a big uproar that they were incompetent or fraudulant. Heck, Zare went on to be chair of the National Science Council, and still is well respected (there is good reason to believe that Zare was responsible for Bush's proposed initiative in the State of the Union to increase funding for science education and the budget for fundamental research - it was likely just lip service, but the speechwriters heard someone pushing for it). The key is that the life on Mars folks published first, and then went to the press. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Pons and Fleischmann tried to circumvent the system, and got hoisted by the own petard.

 

[T'ai Chi]

...published first, and then went to the press. That's the way the system is supposed to work.

which is exactly why parapsychologists publish in journals in their field instead of taking a paranormal challenge.

 

[CFLarsen]

which is exactly why parapsychologists publish in journals in their field instead of taking a paranormal challenge.

No, that's not why. The only reason is because they know they can't pass it.

One million dollars for their research. Yet, they run away from it.

 

[pgwenthold]

which is exactly why parapsychologists publish in journals in their field instead of taking a paranormal challenge.

Not at all comparable. In fact, a better analogy would be with the scientist research grants, as Claus has noted.

Any real scientist in the world would jump at the opportunity to get a million dollar research grant if all they had to do was to demonstrate that the phenomenon they were claiming to investigate actually existed. Press conference be damned, just give me the research money.

In fact, this is why I suggested to Randi that he offer the million dollars to Schwartz as a research grant to the University of Arizona. All he has to do to get the research money is to demonstrate that he is investigating something that exists. Make that offer to any of my friends in the College of Science, and they would be all over it in a heartbeat. The University of Arizona looks at it and says, dude, get this research money (and give us the 50% IDC).

Yet, Schwartz ducks it, knowing full well that he can't even demonstrate the existence of the thing he claims to be studying.

It's an insult to legitimate scientists who are killing themselves to get research funds. They have to do things like propose to do _high quality_ experiments and cutting edge research, and even then the funding rate is minimal. Schwartz only has to show that there is anything there and he would get a million dollars in unrestricted research funds, yet can't (or won't) do it.

What a total hack.

 

[Hindmost]

As posted earlier, when trying to fuse deuterium togther with itself or deuterium and tritium together, the electromagnetic repulsion of the protons in the respective atoms must be overcome. The repulsion is similar to trying to pushing two magnets with the same pole facing each other together--they will repel. (north to north or south to south) If you can get the atoms close enough together, the strong nuclear force will take hold and the atoms can fuse together and release a bunch of energy. The sun fuses hydrogen all the time. Deuterium and tritium are just hydrogen with an extra neutron or two respectively--they are a bit easier to fuse than single protons.

As a fusion analogy, picture pushing two bolders up a hill that increases in slope as the bolders get closer to the top. The force required increases as the bolders get closer to the edge of the well. At the top is a well that the two bolders fall into and "fuse," releasing energy.

In actual fusion: to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion of the protons, the atoms have to be moving fast--very fast. The speed of molecules is essentially the same as their temperture. The deuterium and/or tritium have to achieve the equivalent of about 10 million degrees in temperature to cause fusion--with their high speed, the atoms get close enough--occasionally--to fuse. (they fall into the well) However, at this point here on earth with available technology, the amount of energy required to heat the atoms and confine them using enorumus superconducting electromagnets to cause fusion has never emerged from the fusion reaction, i.e., we have to put more energy in than we get out out of the reaction. The fusion reaction produces helium and neutrons and energy--making it more desireable than fission, since there is very radioactive waste produced in comparison. The energy released is due to conversion of mass to energy in accordance with Einstein's equation E=mc^2.

In the original cold fusion test, palladium was used to absorb the deuterium. An electric current was passed through the palladium to try and fuse the deuterium. Initially, the experiment appeared to produce the required products and energy. The palladium was thought to act as a sort of "catalyst" for the fusion. However, the experimental procedure was poor and the data improperly analyzed. The results were not reproducible and much better analysis indicated that palladium really couldn't do anything to change the electromagnetic repulsive force. Cold fusion would have to alter some well established physics principles in my opine.

Hope this helps a bit

glenn

 

[Jekyll]

which is exactly why parapsychologists publish in journals in their field instead of taking a paranormal challenge.

If only they published in reputable journals.
They could even take the test afterwards.

That would show those mean old sceptics.

 

[Indolent Wretch]

Laws of Physics, Not really broken

The big problem for fusion no matter what method you choose is getting the hydrogen atoms close enough for them to fuse, and the problem with this is that the nucleus of the hydrogen atom carries a positive charge so that they naturally repel each other.

The Pons/Fleischman idea was that the deuterium/hydrogen atoms take up positions within the palladium matrix and that these positions force the hydrogen nuclei closer together so that when a current in then directed through the electrode fusion takes place.

This doesn't really break the laws of physics as I see it, in reality hydrogen nuclei are very small, the charge is very low and a very small (per atom in absolute terms) amount of energy is required to get them to fuse. The tricky business is using this energy efficiently to achieve this, most solutions both in tokomaks and indeed the sun are rather brute force.

Of course Pons and Fleischman aren't the only ones to come up with cold fusion, and other forms of cold fusion actually work, the 'Farnsworth–Hirsch Fusor' is an electrostatic table top device that can produce very low levels of hydrogen fusion and is sometimes used as a low energy neutron source (see 'fusor' in wiki). These fusor designs are unfortunately unsuitable to energy production.

And then there is muon-catalysed-fusion. This uses a stream of muons (very heavy electrons) injected into a reaction space with deuterium and tritium gas. The muon-electrons replace in some atoms the standard electrons, as these muons are much much heavier than an normal electron they orbit much more tightly and thus shield the nucleus charge better, resulting in atoms that can get much much closer to one another, dramatically increasing the rate of fusion. Idealy muon into hydrogen * fusion * muons are released and continue to work... Problems are 1% of muons get stuck in the resultant atom from the fusion and are lost to the process, and muons only have a half life of around 2 microseconds so there are a limited number of fusions they can catalyse. The problem is therefore producing muons cheaply enough so that the amount of energy got out is more than the amount put in, no system at this time (to my knowledge) can produce muons efficiently enough to produce excess energy but study is obviously still continuing.

Remember hydrogen fusion is just the burning of fuel, the fuel unfortunately is bloody hard to get to burn, but there are more approaches than just brute force.

 

[kookbreaker]

Actually, the problem was that Pons and Fleischmann tried to go around the system. Had they just submitted their work for publication before their silly press conference, many of the blatent problems they had would have been fleshed out, and they wouldn't have been able to boast such grandeose claims.

I don't know about that, Pons was actually outright deceptive and might have disguised any errors with more false claims. At the time of the press conference, he had claimed a fusion test had burnt a hole through the lab floor. When physicists stated that the fusion reaction would mean that Tritium, Neutrons, and Nuetrinos would be present and detectable he happily stated that they were detected (they weren't).

The 'end run', oddly enough, may have saved some shakedown time.

 

[drkitten]

Actually, the problem was that Pons and Fleischmann tried to go around the system.

You don't need to be incompetent nor a fraud to get something wrong in scientific research.

I don't think we're really in disagreement. The reason I say that they were incompetents or frauds is because they tried to go around the system.

Case 1 : they knew that they were trying to sell the world on something that didn't work -- and were therefore frauds. Case 2 : They genuinely believed that they were onto something, but didn't understand the scientific process well enough to see the need for peer review for such a revolutionary claim-- which makes them incompetent.

 

[pgwenthold]

Case 2 : They genuinely believed that they were onto something, but didn't understand the scientific process well enough to see the need for peer review for such a revolutionary claim-- which makes them incompetent.

Case 3: Utah had just recently had great success with the Artificial Heart press conference and decided the risk was worth it for the university, and therefore pressured Pons and Fleischmann to do it even though they didn't want to, such that their failure was that they didn't have the backbone to stand up to adminstration pressure.

FWIW, Case 3 is the correct answer.

Stan Pons knows plenty about the scientific process and is anything but an incompetent scientist.

 

[Hindmost]

The big problem for fusion no matter what method you choose is getting the hydrogen atoms close enough for them to fuse, and the problem with this is that the nucleus of the hydrogen atom carries a positive charge so that they naturally repel each other.

The Pons/Fleischman idea was that the deuterium/hydrogen atoms take up positions within the palladium matrix and that these positions force the hydrogen nuclei closer together so that when a current in then directed through the electrode fusion takes place.

This doesn't really break the laws of physics as I see it, in reality hydrogen nuclei are very small, the charge is very low and a very small (per atom in absolute terms) amount of energy is required to get them to fuse. The tricky business is using this energy efficiently to achieve this, most solutions both in tokomaks and indeed the sun are rather brute force.

Of course Pons and Fleischman aren't the only ones to come up with cold fusion, and other forms of cold fusion actually work, the 'Farnsworth–Hirsch Fusor' is an electrostatic table top device that can produce very low levels of hydrogen fusion and is sometimes used as a low energy neutron source (see 'fusor' in wiki). These fusor designs are unfortunately unsuitable to energy production.

And then there is muon-catalysed-fusion. This uses a stream of muons (very heavy electrons) injected into a reaction space with deuterium and tritium gas. The muon-electrons replace in some atoms the standard electrons, as these muons are much much heavier than an normal electron they orbit much more tightly and thus shield the nucleus charge better, resulting in atoms that can get much much closer to one another, dramatically increasing the rate of fusion. Idealy muon into hydrogen * fusion * muons are released and continue to work... Problems are 1% of muons get stuck in the resultant atom from the fusion and are lost to the process, and muons only have a half life of around 2 microseconds so there are a limited number of fusions they can catalyse. The problem is therefore producing muons cheaply enough so that the amount of energy got out is more than the amount put in, no system at this time (to my knowledge) can produce muons efficiently enough to produce excess energy but study is obviously still continuing.

Remember hydrogen fusion is just the burning of fuel, the fuel unfortunately is bloody hard to get to burn, but there are more approaches than just brute force.

The table top accelerators are not really cold fusion. The velocity of the atoms of deuterium are in accordance with fusion ignition temperatures; there just isn't that many atoms being fused. With muon catalyze fusion, the muon--with its negative charge--attracts the positive atoms making fusion a bit easier. Neither of these violate physics. Standard EM stuff.

The Pons/Fleischman experiment claimed to lower the ignition temperature for fusion...that would violate previously accepted data on nuclear reactions related to fusion.

glenn

 

[Indolent Wretch]

Erm...

With muon catalyze fusion, the muon--with its negative charge--attracts the positive atoms making fusion a bit easier. Neither of these violate physics. Standard EM stuff.

In other words the presence of the muons reduces the fusion ignition temperature

The Pons/Fleischman experiment claimed to lower the ignition temperature for fusion...that would violate previously accepted data on nuclear reactions related to fusion.

I don't think it does, it may violate the experimental data related to a hot fusion technique such as magnetic plasma confinement, but I can't think of anything fundamental that it violates. The 'Lawson Criterion' is a general rule of thumb, nothing really fundamental, and only applies to a confined plasma form of fusion as I understand it.

Muon catalysis shows that making fusion 'easier' is possible, if there was a subatomic particle that had the same properties as an electron-muon, a 0.001% chance of binding after fusion and a lifetime of 10 microseconds we'd already have a working net energy fusion method.

And I don't think the properties of these subatomic particles was necessary rolled in order to make 'a colder' fusion resulting in net energy impossibly difficult.

Although of course if it this hypothetical particle did exist, and it wasn't very rare, the universe would look very different from the way it does today.

One wonders given the advances in chip design (nanometer level features) and micromechanical machines how long it will be before someone can make a micromechanicalprocessor that channels deuterium nucei into a central chamber and fuses them individually using a couple of tiny electrodes. Now that would look cool.

 

[drkitten]

Case 3: Utah had just recently had great success with the Artificial Heart press conference and decided the risk was worth it for the university, and therefore pressured Pons and Fleischmann to do it even though they didn't want to, such that their failure was that they didn't have the backbone to stand up to adminstration pressure.

FWIW, Case 3 is the correct answer.

I disagree.

The way he prepared his reports -- coyly dancing around providing any information that would let someone actually reproduce his experimental setup, and misreporting neutron detection, for two examples among many -- do not suggest a competent research under pressure.

He may have misspoken about the neutrons. That makes him incompetent. He may have lied. That makes him fraudulent. But there is no pressure that a university can bring to bear that should be sufficient to make a competent and honest researcher falsify data.

 

[Hindmost]

In other words the presence of the muons reduces the fusion ignition temperature



I don't think it does, it may violate the experimental data related to a hot fusion technique such as magnetic plasma confinement, but I can't think of anything fundamental that it violates. The 'Lawson Criterion' is a general rule of thumb, nothing really fundamental, and only applies to a confined plasma form of fusion as I understand it.

Muon catalysis shows that making fusion 'easier' is possible, if there was a subatomic particle that had the same properties as an electron-muon, a 0.001% chance of binding after fusion and a lifetime of 10 microseconds we'd already have a working net energy fusion method.

And I don't think the properties of these subatomic particles was necessary rolled in order to make 'a colder' fusion resulting in net energy impossibly difficult.

Although of course if it this hypothetical particle did exist, and it wasn't very rare, the universe would look very different from the way it does today.

One wonders given the advances in chip design (nanometer level features) and micromechanical machines how long it will be before someone can make a micromechanicalprocessor that channels deuterium nucei into a central chamber and fuses them individually using a couple of tiny electrodes. Now that would look cool.

I don’t think we actually disagree.

The muon, with its larger mass occasionally goes into orbit around the deuterium. Since it is more massive, it moves into a lower “orbit” and is therefore closer to the nucleus. As a result, it is a bit easier for the next deuterium atom to get close enough to fuse. The muon acts as a catalyst in this manner--but that is just real physics. If we could make muons in an energy efficient manner, this would make the process viable--obviously. Right now, the energy to do so is just not going to help achieve break-even.

</O
Palladium does not do anything equivalent on a nuclear level—it can’t lower the ignition temperature and anything chemically related certainly wouldn’t have the energy--and that’s why I believe it would violate the physics of fusion reactions.

glenn

 

[pgwenthold]

Palladium does not do anything equivalent on a nuclear level—it can’t lower the ignition temperature and anything chemically related certainly wouldn’t have the energy--and that’s why I believe it would violate the physics of fusion reactions.

Isn't the argument that palladium can basically allow for much higher concentrations of hydrogen, and that is the key to the process? Thus in effect it _would_ be lowering the ignition temperature, because it lowers the barrier for hydrogen nuclei approaching each other. There is a reason that they are using palladium as opposed to something like gold, for example. Pd is a great hydrogen sponge.

Now, I'm not saying the argument is correct, but given the chemistry of the system, I can see where that argument could come from.

 

[Hindmost]

Isn't the argument that palladium can basically allow for much higher concentrations of hydrogen, and that is the key to the process? Thus in effect it _would_ be lowering the ignition temperature, because it lowers the barrier for hydrogen nuclei approaching each other. There is a reason that they are using palladium as opposed to something like gold, for example. Pd is a great hydrogen sponge.

Now, I'm not saying the argument is correct, but given the chemistry of the system, I can see where that argument could come from.

Pd definitely absorbs hydrogen, but does not affect the EM repulsion of the deuterium--the atoms really aren't any closer together inside Pd. The deuterium still needs to obtain ignition temperatures in accordance with typical fusion calculations. If the EM repulsion could be changed, then fusion at lower temperatures could be achieved--that is a lot of physics to change. Muon catalyst fusion doesn't change the EM repulsion, it is only because the muon, with its massive size, hangs closer to the nucleus. This allows the another deuterium to get closer to the atom with the muon in orbit. The muon--with its negative charge--essentially blocks the positive nucleus from pushing away a second deuterium atom. This lowers the ignition temp because the atoms can get closer together initially. I think the deuterium must get within about 10^-15 meters of each other to fuse--but I would have to look that one up.

Any chemical reaction would not supply enough energy to cause fusion as the energy from any known chemical reaction is typically more than a million times less than required. Chemistry just can't affect the nucleus of atoms.

Hope this helps.

glenn

 

[pgwenthold]

Pd definitely absorbs hydrogen, but does not affect the EM repulsion of the deuterium--the atoms really aren't any closer together inside Pd.

Compared to what? Compared to something that doesn't absorb H2 as well, they most certainly are (by definition).

Granted, compared to what they are in liquid H2, I can't say (personally, it would be very surprising if Pd could become higher concentration than H2 liquid, but then again, it is a grandeose claim...)

The deuterium still needs to obtain ignition temperatures in accordance with typical fusion calculations.

Only because it's not true that the atoms are closer together. However, if it were true that the atoms were closer together, then you would not need to heat them up to ignition temperatures of a normal fusion reaction. That's the whole point of a catalyst, to reduce the temperature that is required (i.e. the amount of heat needed to be added) for a reaction to occur.

If the EM repulsion could be changed, then fusion at lower temperatures could be achieved--that is a lot of physics to change. Muon catalyst fusion doesn't change the EM repulsion, it is only because the muon, with its massive size, hangs closer to the nucleus. This allows the another deuterium to get closer to the atom with the muon in orbit.

I don't understand. How can it get closer at the same temperature without reducing the charge repulsion (the repulsion energy)?

To get two nuclei closer together, you either have give them more energy (heat them up) or lower the energy cost of getting them near each other. As you describe it here, the muon is serving to reduce the energy cost of the charge repulsion, allowing for the protons to get closer to each other.

The muon--with its negative charge--essentially blocks the positive nucleus from pushing away a second deuterium atom. This lowers the ignition temp because the atoms can get closer together initially.

IOW, the negative charge reduces the barrier for fusion to occur, because it lowers the repulsive interaction. That's exactly what I am saying.

I think the deuterium must get within about 10^-15 meters of each other to fuse--but I would have to look that one up.

That is irrelevent to the question at hand, which involves the energy it takes to get there, not the distance they need to get to.

Any chemical reaction would not supply enough energy to cause fusion as the energy from any known chemical reaction is typically more than a million times less than required. Chemistry just can't affect the nucleus of atoms.

But that's why Pons and Fleischmann's claim was controversial. They were claiming that the solid state chemistry of the Pd did in fact provide the energy stabilization needed to affect the nuclear reaction. This was indeed a bold claim, but you can't just dismiss it with "it can't happen." They were claiming the exception to the common belief that "it can't happen." Had their experimental data held up to scrutiny, it would have required a revision of the currently accepted view of what can and can't happen.