What evidence supports the possibility of nuclear fusion in palladium cathodes?

[verdigris]

Pons and Fleischman used a palladium cathode in their cold fusion experiment of 1989 (cathode immersed in heavy water,D20) and they said that excess energy was released from the system.
Since 1989 lots of experiments have been done and some researchers have agreed with the findings of Pons and Fleischman.
I have seen many explanations of why cold fusion can't take place according to known physics but here is one suggestion I have as to why it can!
Palladium metal is very resistant to fracturing.This means that
impurity atoms or ions face a high energy barrier to get into the crystal lattice and distort the face-centred cubic arrangement,and
that it is difficult for defects to grow larger to cause fracturing.
But when an electric current flows through palladium metal (which has hydrogen gas on its surface and inside it - palladium absorbs 900 times its own volume of hydrogen) hydrogen molecules and hydrogen ions (which are present in the heavy water) are given the energy to distort the metal structure and remain in situ.As time passes the number of distortions and hence the potential energy of the palladium cathode increases.At some critical point, the face-centred cubic arrangement of palladium atoms is quickly restored and the hydrogen molecules and ions are expelled from the palladium cathode as potential energy is released like a mini-earthquake.In a cylindrical-shaped cathode the released energy could be focused at its end or in the centre of the rod.In particular,at some locations in the rod where deuterium molecules are located, the focused energy could be sufficient to raise the temperature and pressure and cause helium 4 to form.The formation of helium inside the cathode would explain why nuclear products have rarely been detected in the heavy water, in experiments of this type.And the energy yield from fusion would be low because few deuterium atoms would get to the centre of the cathode by diffusion - most would be at or near the surface - the place where energy is least likely to be concentrated in order to raise the temperature and pressure enough for helium formation.

 

[Morbius]

And the energy yield from fusion would be low because few deuterium atoms would get to the centre of the cathode by diffusion - most would be at or near the surface - the place where energy is least likely to be concentrated in order to raise the temperature and pressure enough for helium formation.

verdigris,

If we are talking He-4 produced in a "D-T" reaction; that is fusion of Deuterium and Tritium:

D + T --> He4 + n + 17.6 MeV

What happened to the neutron? The neutron gets 14.1 MeV of that 17.6 MeV of energy
liberated. A 14.1 MeV neutron has a LONG mean free path because its interaction cross-
section is so low.

That 14.1 MeV neutron is going to escape. You can't compress the material enough to
contain that 14.1 MeV neutron. Since the 14.1 MeV neutrons will escape; they should
be streaming out of the electrolytic cell if there really is nuclear fusion underway. We
don't see the neutrons - so there's no fusion underway.

Additionally, it doesn't matter where the energy ends up - "inside" or "on the surface" as
you point out above. Either way - we can detect the energy - be it the temperature of the
material inside, or the temperature of the material on the surface, or energy escaping as
radiation, for example.; from the surface - we should see it and measure it. We don't see it.

The absence of both the energy and neutrons that one expects to see from the "D-T"
reaction leads one to an inescapable conclusion - "D-T" fusion ISN'T happening.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Emfuser]

My fusion prof back in university (also a physicist) would get livid if anyone ever brought up Pons & Fleischman. As Dr. Greenman pointed out, the most obvious signs one would expect from the reaction those men, and others who follow in trying to replicate their experiments are trying to induce, are missing, thus leading to the obvious conclusion that the apparatus is not achieving what they claim it is.

The last I heard of cold fusion was Dr. Rusi Taleyarkhan @ Purdue. This is bothersome to me because the circumstances surrounding his work have been tarnishing the reputation of an otherwise well-regarded nuclear engineering program.

 

[curie]

There is currently cold fusion research being undertaken in the UK at one of its well renowned technical & engineering universities, based on Taleyarkhan's work (sonofusion). One of the problems they are anticipating is distinction between the possible fusion-generated neutrons and the incident neutrons required. It will be good to enventually have the idea independently corroborated or refuted.

 

[JKepler]

It's Exothermic but not Fusion.

By Occam's razor, one had to conclude that Pons and Fleschmann had to be either deceptive, or clumsy. We can't blame the established research infrastructure for not believing them.

Strangely though, through more careful and duplicatable experimentation, it can now be seen that there is an exothermic reaction, and tracks recorded on CR-39 detectors indicate leptons at about 10MeV energies.

Please point your seach engines toward "Widom and Larsen" and "Ultra Low Momentum neutrons" being generated on metallic hydride Surfaces; There really is a reaction, that may be very interesting to future research associates. I believe it is an excellent explanation of much of the phenonomon of "Cold Fusion" whereby Columb repulsion is not a barrier; although the Pauli principle is not addressed... Check it out!

 

[Morbius]

Please point your seach engines toward "Widom and Larsen" and "Ultra Low Momentum neutrons" being generated on metallic hydride Surfaces; There really is a reaction, that may be very interesting to future research associates.

JKepler,

However, whatever the reaction is; it's NOT nuclear fusion.

There may be some reactions via the electro-weak force.

Lest one forget, the goal is to produce the large amount of
energy freed when reactions involving the strong [nuclear] force
are produced.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Azael]

There is currently cold fusion research being undertaken in the UK at one of its well renowned technical & engineering universities, based on Taleyarkhan's work (sonofusion). One of the problems they are anticipating is distinction between the possible fusion-generated neutrons and the incident neutrons required. It will be good to enventually have the idea independently corroborated or refuted.

You might find this interesting regarding "sonofusion".

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000096000003034301000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

A unique, new stand-alone acoustic inertial confinement nuclear fusion test device was successfully tested. Experiments using four different liquid types were conducted in which bubbles were self-nucleated without the use of external neutrons. Four independent detection systems were used (i.e., a neutron track plastic detector to provide unambiguous visible records for fast neutrons, a BF3 detector, a NE-113-type liquid scintillation detector, and a NaI ray detector). Statistically significant nuclear emissions were observed for deuterated benzene and acetone mixtures but not for heavy water. The measured neutron energy was 2.45 MeV, which is indicative of deuterium-deuterium (D-D) fusion. Neutron emission rates were in the range ~5×103 n/s to ~104 n/s and followed the inverse law dependence with distance. Control experiments did not result in statistically significant neutron or ray emissions.

 

[Morbius]

You might find this interesting regarding "sonofusion".

Azael,

Yes - I assisted a collegue, Dr. William Moss; in an analysis of "sonoluminescene" or
"sonofusion".

The conlusion was that it was NOT inducing nuclear fusion.

In fact, Dr. Moss twice REJECTED one of the papers on "sonofusion"
when he was called upon to review it for the journals:

http://www.asa.aip.org/vol12no2.pdf

From the American Institute of Physics website, Dr Moss makes
the following evaluation:

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2002/split/579-2.html


However, according to leading sonoluminescence theorist William Moss
of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, "We are all pretty sure that
normal SL conditions are nowhere near fusion temperatures--typical SL
temperatures don't exceed 11,000 degrees Kelvin or so, at least from
theoretical estimates"---as opposed to the millions of degrees that
nuclear fusion would typically require.


Sonofusion misses the temperatures required for nuclear fusion by
two to three orders of magnitude.

The thermonuclear fusion reaction D + T -> He4 + n has a very characteristic
signature - the 14.1 MeV neutrons.

Sonofusion doesn't produce 14.1 MeV neutrons; so it is NOT nuclear fusion occurring.

"Sonufusion" is NOT nuclear fusion.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Azael]

Azael,

Yes - I assisted a collegue, Dr. William Moss; in an analysis of "sonoluminescene" or
"sonofusion".

The conlusion was that it was NOT inducing nuclear fusion.

In fact, Dr. Moss twice REJECTED one of the papers on "sonofusion"
when he was called upon to review it for the journals:

http://www.asa.aip.org/vol12no2.pdf

From the American Institute of Physics website, Dr Moss makes
the following evaluation:

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2002/split/579-2.html


However, according to leading sonoluminescence theorist William Moss
of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, "We are all pretty sure that
normal SL conditions are nowhere near fusion temperatures--typical SL
temperatures don't exceed 11,000 degrees Kelvin or so, at least from
theoretical estimates"---as opposed to the millions of degrees that
nuclear fusion would typically require.


Sonofusion misses the temperatures required for nuclear fusion by
two to three orders of magnitude.

The thermonuclear fusion reaction D + T -> He4 + n has a very characteristic
signature - the 14.1 MeV neutrons.

Sonofusion doesn't produce 14.1 MeV neutrons; so it is NOT nuclear fusion occurring.

"Sonufusion" is NOT nuclear fusion.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Taleyarkhin(how ever its spelled) idea was fascinating though. To bad it never worked in reality. But then again Sonoluminescence is fascinating on its own without the need for any fusion going on.

 

[Morbius]

Taleyarkhin(how ever its spelled) idea was fascinating though. To bad it never worked in reality. But then again Sonoluminescence is fascinating on its own without the need for any fusion going on.

Azael,

Yes - it's a fascinating field of study.

Unfortunately, it is "hyped" as a potential solution for energy production.

It's also interesting how the "Cold Fusion" crowd has morphed over the years. They are
mainly saying that "Cold Fusion" phenomenon may be due to some interaction via the
"electro-weak" force. There may be something there. However, the "electro-weak" force
is the same one that is responsible for regular chemical reactions.

So any "Cold Fusion" reactions will have the same order of magnitude in terms of
energy production, as chemical reactions.

The big promise for energy production is something based on the nuclear force; because
that yields, pound for pound; a MILLION times as much energy as derived from reactions
based on the "electro-weak" force.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[curie]

You might find this interesting regarding "sonofusion".

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000096000003034301000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Thanks. The Imperial College group are definitely using external neutrons, derived from a D-T generator somewhat ironically! I'll do some digging to see what the basis of their research is. Hopefully they are not flogging the proverbial dead horse.

 

[lewisglarsen]

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions are not "cold fusion"

JKepler,

However, whatever the reaction is; it's NOT nuclear fusion.

There may be some reactions via the electro-weak force.

Lest one forget, the goal is to produce the large amount of
energy freed when reactions involving the strong [nuclear] force
are produced.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Dear Dr. Gregory and other participants:

We wholeheartedly agree; "it's NOT nuclear fusion." In particular, and contrary to most of the existing “cold fusion” scientists, Prof. Widom and I believe that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed below. No “new physics” is involved --- merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not really “cold fusion” and never was.

Please note that the weak interaction is not necessarily "weak" energetically speaking. Energy released by ultra low momentum neutron (ULMN) catalyzed nuclear reactions can be quite substantial. For example, see Eqs. 30 and 31 in our EPJC paper; these particular reactions release > 26 MeV. There are known beta decays that are > 20 MeV. So by choosing the right "targets" for ULMN neutron absorption, you can achieve net energy releases that approach those of the D-D and D-T fusion reactions. However, there are no large releases of energetic neutrons (ULMNs are almost all captured locally before they can thermalize) or hard gamma radiation (gammas between ~1 MeV and 10 MeV are directly absorbed by mass-renormalized SPP electrons and reradiated as mostly infrared photons).

Lastly, ULM neutrons have huge DeBroglie wavelengths because they are formed collectively in many-body surface "patches" of protons or deuterons. Depending on the size of a particular "patch", ULMN wavelengths can be as large as 50,000 to 100,000 Angstroms. No joke. By comparison, a free neutron passing through condensed matter would typically have a wavelength of ~ 2 Angstroms. So the capture cross sections for ULM neutrons on many "target" isotopes is orders of magnitude larger than for neutrons at thermal energies. This is why large fluxes of much more energetic (thermal to MeV+) neutrons have never been seen in 18 years of experimental work on LENR systems. The absence of substantial external emissions of hard photon radiation produced in conjunction with local neutron captures and some (not all) beta decays is explained by local direct conversion of gammas by mass-renormalized "heavy" surface plasmon polariton (SPP) electrons.

The main problem for most researchers in the "cold fusion" field is that for 18 years they have been working with a D-D fusion paradigm locked firmly in their minds. Unfortunately, in our view, that conceptual paradigm was wrong. So much effort was misdirected and many otherwise good experimental results were misinterpreted --- this contributed to the "wheel spinning" and terrible frustration that has characterized the field since 1989.

Hope that this helps clarify a few points. For further details, please read our papers if you have time.

"Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces"
Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006)

"Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269

"Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472

"Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces"
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059

 

[Morbius]

The main problem for most researchers in the "cold fusion" field is that for 18 years they have been working with a D-D fusion paradigm locked firmly in their minds. Unfortunately, in our view, that conceptual paradigm was wrong. So much effort was misdirected and many otherwise good experimental results were misinterpreted --- this contributed to the "wheel spinning" and terrible frustration that has characterized the field since 1989.

lewisglarsen,

I would agree with your assessment. Ever since the early days of "cold fusion"; I've always
contended it was probably a chemical [Coulomb] or "weak" interaction.

It always seemed that the chemists exploring this phenomenon cited it as being a
nuclear reaction by "default".

In essence; "I did this experiment which yielded results that I can't explain via my
knowledge of chemistry; so the reactions must be nuclear, which is a field I don't know
anything about."

It didn't look "nuclear" to me; and I know what nuclear looks like. I figured sooner or
later it would turn out to be some interesting, and heretofore unknown, or unexplored;
chemical or "weak" interaction - and we have learned something.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[sbkrivit]

The term "cold fusion" was not a wise choice of words for this research in 1989, nor is it now. The hypothesis of a fusion reaction is still speculative, there are numerous anomalies reported in the research that clearly are not fusion, and then there is the Widom-Larsen Not-Fusion theory.

New Energy Times has been reporting on the Widom-Larsen theory for several years. Our comprehensive ongoing analysis of this theory can be found at http://newenergytimes.com/wltheory .

Steve Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times

 

[mheslep]

Granted the absence of the 14MeV N. demands skepticism. But, given the many reports of the presence of He from the beginning, it seems to me that neither can the idea of some kind of non-chemical reaction occurring be dismissed. "Well its not uniformly repeatable". Again, that warrants skepticism not dismissal. In my field (EE) the early development of doping for semiconductors and integrated circuits produced frustratingly non repeatable results. If everyone had followed the banner of 'scam, run them out of town' we'd still be using tubes.

mheslep

 

[Morbius]

Granted the absence of the 14MeV N. demands skepticism. But, given the many reports of the presence of He from the beginning, it seems to me that neither can the idea of some kind of non-chemical reaction occurring be dismissed.

mheslep,

Although one may not be able to dismiss some kind of "non-chemical" reaction occurring;
I believe we CAN DISMISS this as a "nuclear reaction" - that is "nuclear" as in relating
to the "strong force".

The observed reactions just don't look like "nuclear reactions".

Something along the lines of a reaction from the "electro-weak" force as suggested by
Larsen, above is plausible.

As Larsen states above, "..it's NOT nuclear fusion"; and I concur.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Rade]

Here is a website with numerous reports of LENR (low energy nuclear reactions):

http://www.lenr-canr.org/index.html

 

[Morbius]

Here is a website with numerous reports of LENR (low energy nuclear reactions):

Rade,

I'm familiar with this work. However, even those scientists don't claim the effect is a nuclear
reaction - in the sense that the reaction is due to the strong nuclear force.

Instead, they claim it is a manifestation of the "electro-weak" force - the unification between the
Coulomb force and the weak force.

The difference is important in terms of energy production. Reactions based on the "electro-weak"
force give approximately 1 eV of energy per amu of reactant - the same as any other chemical
reaction.

Fusion reactions via the strong nuclear force result in energies of 3 Million eV per amu of reactant.

The whole reason for wanting a nuclear reaction is that MILLION+ factor of energy release; which
one doesn't get from ANY claimed "cold fusion" mechanism.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[sbkrivit]

energy release

Dr. Greenman:

Larsen writes: "not necessarily 'weak' energetically speaking"

You write: "I figured sooner or later it would turn out to be some interesting, and heretofore unknown, or unexplored; chemical or 'weak' interaction."

There was a time when I accepted - as it was told to me - the assertion/speculation that a fusion mechanism was responsible for the observed anomalies in what I now call LENR research. Eight years of journalistic investigation later, I am less willing to accept that hypothesis.

I understand that chemical energy is on the order of a million times less than nuclear fusion energy. From my investigations, I remain convinced that the numerous experimental reports I have come across which show energy release on the order of a thousand times more than you would expect from a chemical process remain rigorous.

I would like to know your perspective on Larsen's assertion that this "weak interaction" idea is a potentially significant energy-releasing process.

Thank you,
Steve Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times

 

[mheslep]

...There was a time when I accepted - as it was told to me - the assertion/speculation that a fusion mechanism was responsible for the observed anomalies in what I now call LENR research. Eight years of journalistic investigation later, I am less willing to accept that hypothesis.

Sbkrivit: that indeed seems to be prevailing opinion. If you are current on the state of investigation could explain why? (ie why it can't fusion) http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJcoldfusionb.pdf" in the 90's. Has Schwinger's hypothesis been shown to be wrong? -

1st he suggests the reaction may be p + D -> He3 + 5MeV gamma. Therefore no neutrons required. As for the gamma he suggests it may be absorbed by the Pa lattice.:

Imagine then, that a small, but macroscopic piece of the lattice absorbs the excess energy of the HD or DD reaction. ... I advance the idea of the lattice playing a vital role as a hypothesis. ... Intermittency is the hallmark of cold fusion. ... Does the lattice hypothesis have a natural explanation for intermittency? ... a close approach to saturation loading is required for effective fusion to take place. But, surely, the loading of deuterium into the palladium lattice does not occur with perfect spatial uniformity. There are fluctuations. It may happen that a microscopically large-if macroscopically small-region attains a state of such lattice uniformity that it can function collectively in absorbing the excess nuclear energy that is released in an act of fusion. And that energy can initiate a chain reaction as the vibrations of the excited ions bring them into closer proximity. So begins a burst. In the course of time, the increasing number of vacancies in the lattice will bring about a shut-down of the burst. The start-up of the next burst is an independent affair.

 

[sbkrivit]

Sbkrivit: that indeed seems to be prevailing opinion. If you are current on the state of investigation could explain why? (ie why it can't fusion)

I think you meant to ask "why it can't *be* fusion. So I'll go with that.

I don't know what is possible or impossible. On that ground, I'll sidestep your word "can't" but do my best to respond to you.

I don't know anybody, within or without the "cold fusion" community who endorses Schwinger's hypothesis, though they do appreciate that Schwinger gave the subject respect and an open-mind. OTOH, I don't know anybody within the "cold fusion" community who endorses *anybody's* theory, aside from their own. So as an observer -unqualified to directly evaluate any theory - where does that leave me? No where, really.

On the experimental side, what do we know of thermonuclear fusion?

It has three branches
Branch 3 has commensurate gamma
The n to t ratio between the 1st and 2nd branch is 1:1
The 4He to n ratio between the 1st and 3rd branch is 1:10,000,000

On the experimental side, what do we know of, if you don't mind the term, low energy nuclear reactions?

It produces heat and 4He
There's no observed gamma
Sometimes it produces 3He and t
The n to t ratio is 1:1,000,000
The 4He to n ratio is 10,000,000:1
It does not show clear signs of the 1st or 2nd branch of TN fusion
It produces heavy element transmutations (I am told such are not possible from fusion processes)
It produces excess heat with light water (I am told such are not possible from fusion processes)

So I don't know. It sure looks nuclear, but fusion?

Steve Krivit

 

[mheslep]

Steve - Interesting. Thank you.

 

[Ben Powell]

I lack the zeal to call myself a scientist, rather let me describe myself as an interested observer with relevant degrees. I read a journal article recently:
Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 40, 293–303 (2007) DOI: 10.1051/epjap:2007152
Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments

P.A. Mosier-Boss,a, S. Szpak, F.E. Gordon, and L.P.G. Forsley

To me this presents a rather compelling case that Palldium's unique affinity to hydrogen extends to catalysing nuclear reactions at significantly lower temperatures than 58 million degrees. Can the esteemed members of the forum provide me with an alternate view of the material discussed?

 

[mheslep]

I lack the zeal to call myself a scientist, rather let me describe myself as an interested observer with relevant degrees. I read a journal article recently:
Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 40, 293–303 (2007) DOI: 10.1051/epjap:2007152
Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments

P.A. Mosier-Boss,a, S. Szpak, F.E. Gordon, and L.P.G. Forsley

Could you post the full abstract please?

 

[Ben Powell]

Certainly, the abstract is as follows...

Abstract: The use of CR-39, a solid state nuclear track detector, to detect the emission of energetic charged particles during Pd/D co-deposition is demonstrated. The pits observed in the CR-39 are attributed to the Pd/D cathode and are not due to radionuclide contamination in the cell components; nor to the impingement of D2 bubbles on the surface of the CR-39; nor to chemical attack by D2, O2, or Cl2. The
features (i.e., optical contrast, shape, and bright spot in the center of the pit) of the pits generated during Pd/D co-deposition are consistent with those observed for pits that are of a nuclear origin.

 

[Ben Powell]

The previous article I cited had a similar critical response in the literature... silence. Perhaps because this thread is seen as a backwater by the respectable fellows.

So I am going to ponder a little... why does palladium have such a unique affinity to hydrogen? I am drawn to its electron configuration... 2-8-18-18-0 lifted from...

http://www.chemicalelements.com/show/electronconfig.html

Palladium seems quite unusual amongst the metals in its abscence of outer s shell electrons... which I believe the above site recognises by stating the 5s orbital is empty (0) whereas empty orbital in other entries are simply omitted.

My understanding of the adsorption of hydrogen into palladium is that surface defects on the lattice are critical and that palladium has an abundance of these. (3 defects need to coalesce as I believe latest research suggests) Repetative cycling of hydrogen loading/unloading leads to large cracks being formed in the lattice... so this notion doesn't seem to far fetched to me. Furthermore the abundance of surface defects seems a reasonable corollary of the empty 5s orbits... in a hand waving way.

Am I mistaken? Is this the reason why Palladium adsorbs hydrogen so readily?

 

[mheslep]

Certainly, the abstract is as follows...

Abstract: The use of CR-39, a solid state nuclear track detector, to detect the emission of energetic charged particles during Pd/D co-deposition is demonstrated. The pits observed in the CR-39 are attributed to the Pd/D cathode and are not due to radionuclide contamination in the cell components; nor to the impingement of D2 bubbles on the surface of the CR-39; nor to chemical attack by D2, O2, or Cl2. The
features (i.e., optical contrast, shape, and bright spot in the center of the pit) of the pits generated during Pd/D co-deposition are consistent with those observed for pits that are of a nuclear origin.

Not sure I follow what they're claiming here as the abstract is bit opaque. That Pd/D produces nuclear charged particles? Thats not new at this point. What does nuclear origin mean? Surely not just a deuteron ion, it must mean alphas? Something > than MeV? Or are they just describing a nuclear measurement technique, which has no direct connection to LENR? Also the big gotcha on Pd/D has been reliable repeatability, so its well known that one can not just read this paper and then jot over to the lab and check it for yourself. That has slowed down progress.

 

[Ben Powell]

Not sure I follow what they're claiming here as the abstract is bit opaque. That Pd/D produces nuclear charged particles? Thats not new at this point. What does nuclear origin mean? Surely not just a deuteron ion, it must mean alphas? Something > than MeV? Or are they just describing a nuclear measurement technique, which has no direct connection to LENR? Also the big gotcha on Pd/D has been reliable repeatability, so its well known that one can not just read this paper and then jot over to the lab and check it for yourself. That has slowed down progress.

That Pd/D might catalyse nuclear reactions may not be new, but a large number of career physicists still consider it pseudo science, and utterly unproven. The 'newness' is the attempt to construct such a compelling experimental demonstration that unbelievers are laughed at rather than the believers. Unfortunately the non-believers have tenure and they have stopped reading journal article with the word palladium in them... so they are winning the debate by 'stonewalling'.

The energetic particles most clearly demonstrated in the paper are alpha particles. I cited the 'technical' paper as It seemed to me the critical point of the debate... "is it nuclear?".

A more translucent paper on objectives and the experiments reliability is their other paper S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, F.E. Gordon,
Naturwissenschaften 94, 511 (2007) which states in the abstract...

Abstract: Almost two decades ago, Fleischmann and Pons
reported excess enthalpy generation in the negatively
polarized Pd/D-D2O system, which they attributed to
nuclear reactions. In the months and years that followed,
other manifestations of nuclear activities in this system
were observed, viz. tritium and helium production and
transmutation of elements. In this report, we present
additional evidence, namely, the emission of highly
energetic charged particles emitted from the Pd/D electrode
when this system is placed in either an external electrostatic
or magnetostatic field. The density of tracks registered by a
CR-39 detector was found to be of a magnitude that
provides undisputable evidence of their nuclear origin. The
experiments were reproducible. A model based upon
electron capture is proposed to explain the reaction
products observed in the Pd/D-D2O system.

So... they are discussiong a LENR technique, but crossing t's and dotting i's to try and break the 'pathological disbelief'. Its not 'new'... but it appears to have all the vestiges of a reputable publication and I am curious to hear how a non-believer will dismiss the work.

Ben.

 

[mheslep]

The previous article I cited had a similar critical response in the literature... silence. Perhaps because this thread is seen as a backwater by the respectable fellows.

So I am going to ponder a little... why does palladium have such a unique affinity to hydrogen? I am drawn to its electron configuration... 2-8-18-18-0 lifted from...

http://www.chemicalelements.com/show/electronconfig.html

Palladium seems quite unusual amongst the metals in its abscence of outer s shell electrons... which I believe the above site recognises by stating the 5s orbital is empty (0) whereas empty orbital in other entries are simply omitted.

My understanding of the adsorption of hydrogen into palladium is that surface defects on the lattice are critical and that palladium has an abundance of these. (3 defects need to coalesce as I believe latest research suggests) Repetative cycling of hydrogen loading/unloading leads to large cracks being formed in the lattice... so this notion doesn't seem to far fetched to me. Furthermore the abundance of surface defects seems a reasonable corollary of the empty 5s orbits... in a hand waving way.

Am I mistaken? Is this the reason why Palladium adsorbs hydrogen so readily?

I know from above this is related to the paper but your post taken alone would have a much better chance of an answer in the https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=64", as there's nothing nuclear per se about it.

 

[Ben Powell]

I know from above this is related to the paper but your post taken alone would have a much better chance of an answer in the https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=64", as there's nothing nuclear per se about it.

Granted... but the known physical processes involved in the interaction of hydrogen with palladium atoms should be a crucial foundation for a systematic theoretical discussion of palladium and potential nuclear fusion reactions therein. I had hoped that followers of this thread were aware of the non controversial status quo before considering disputed ground be your stance pro or anti Palladium supported low energy nuclear reactions (LENR).

Before leaving this thread I will assert my own opinions on LENR and the role of palladium.

Palladiums unique proven ability is that of initiated the adsorption of hydrogen isotopes. I believe the relevance of this to nuclear fusion is simply fuel concentration. The action of electrolysis initiates a highly unstable and localised surface process on the palladium. I propose that a dielectric barrier discharge type phenomena is responsible for the instability/irreprodability observed. By analogy a similar electrolysis initiated surface barrier discharge process similar to the palladium case is more reliably initiated in aluminium/borax rectifiers (see http://home.earthlink.net/~lenyr/borax.htm and build one yourself... I personally found that some electrodes work well and others do not. When I say 'well' I am referring to a high density of flickering blue green spots as the barrier forms.)

So, how can the formation of a dielectric barrier have any relevance to nuclear fusion? Well a presumption of conventional nuclear fusion reaction dynamics involves binary reactions between ions. A stand out exception is that of muon catalysed reactions that have been shown to easily occur at room temperature. Electrons are generally not considered relevant in nuclear fusion reactions as the orbit of an electron bound to a nucleus is too diffuse to enhance nuclear reaction rates and the electron is stripped well before nuclear reactions occur. Quantum mechanics prevents a single electron providing better nuclear screening than offered in the bound ground state.

In an electrical 'arc' the physical system is a lot more complex. Experiments involving dusty plasmas suggest that in a charged flow dust particles order in space to form 'threads' aligned with the charged plasma flow. If dust particles are considered to be analogous to ions in a electron flow a similar ordering could act to narrow the electron flow in a high density discharge. In this region the passage of electrons through a column of space may create a region of charge screening dense enough to lower the required ion temperature for nuclear fusion reactions to occur with observable rate. I was once assured by a Magnetic Confinement Fusion boffin that arcs have insufficient temperature to initiate nuclear fusion reactions. This concept is the thread of interest that I hope to initiate once I muster the courage, however I will offer some observations to pique everyone interst. Satellite observations note more neutrons over the equator, attributed to greater atmospheric lightning, and neutrons have been observed to be released in lightning discharges by researchers in India. So, I propose that rather than a binary reaction, a many body reaction involving a stream of electrons in the region of a dielectric barrier breakdown is the mechanism of the observed LENR in palladium/deuterium electrolysis experiments. Palladiums principle role is that of providing a dense source of fuel ions. Particle accelerators by design primarily explore binary nuclear fusion reactions and explains why they fail to predict LENR in their data.

 

[russ_watters]

Abstract: Almost two decades ago, Fleischmann and Pons
reported excess enthalpy generation in the negatively
polarized Pd/D-D2O system, which they attributed to
nuclear reactions. In the months and years that followed,
other manifestations of nuclear activities in this system
were observed, viz. tritium and helium production and
transmutation of elements.

Their factually incorrect statements about the history of the subject raise a red flag re their credibility. As we don't have access to the actual papers you have cited here, there is little that we can say about them - which is why you have been met with so much silence. But be advised that due to the history of fraud surrounding this topic, we are highly skeptical of the subject matter and keep a very short leash on such discussions. This leash includes a constraint against speculation and posing of unverified, unpublished theories as stated in our TOS (as in your last post).