Investigating the Potential of Nuclear Fusion

[AcupOfPwn]

What do you guys think about this?
[crackpot link deleted]
Personally I think this should be researched with utmost effort of the science community.
Had to do research on this. I am not a nuclear physicist but i have some knowledge of electrochemistry and nuclear chemistry. Peer reviewed journals that i read seem to prove its existence. The chemical reaction seems very possible (although i do think it isn't thermodynamically supported). I think we could be looking at the safest and cleanest energy source yet.

 

[russ_watters]

Welcome to PF.

There is no evidence as yet accepted by the scientific community that implies that "cold fusion" has been demonstrated. But more important, the things most "cold fusion" advocates are looking for tend to violate existing laws of physics, which would lead most credible scientists to conclude such things are impossible. So why would scientists want to look for something they don't think exists?

 

[Lichdar]

Adopt a wait and see attitude. I am actually a 'believer', but for the moment, Mr. Rossi just needs to complete his final product. As it seems to be his intention anyway, and he has not asked for any particular support, I think we can safely wait until October.

There's no reliable theoretical framework for his mechanism, but that doesn't necessarily rule out whether it actually works out or not; we may not understand /why/ gravity works, but we can certainly observe its effect. If Rossi's machine works, then its essential effectiveness would surpass the need for the why.

 

[Raphie]

[crackpot link deleted]

Hi, Russ. Just curious, but would you mind telling "us" why the deleted link was "crackpot"? (Assuming you are the one who edited it...)

 

[Raphie]

Adopt a wait and see attitude. I am actually a 'believer'

Personally, I am neutral on the issue, but believe it's an important and reasonable conversation to have, particularly since the benefits, if the technology were feasible, so greatly outweigh the time lost by those who might find themselves to have been engaged upon a fool's errand should it come to be proven that it were not feasible.

Given this, that even Nobel Laureates such as Dr. Brian Josephson are censored on this topic utterly and absolutely baffles me.

 

[JaredJames]

Given this, that even Nobel Laureates such as Dr. Brian Josephson are censored on this topic utterly and absolutely baffles me.

I didn't see censorship here, perhaps somewhere else?

I'd point out that there was a lot of people being told to just accept the device works and yet no verifiable evidence being produced - not to mention the fact they kept things secret to ensure people couldn't replicate it.

Adopt a wait and see attitude. I am actually a 'believer', but for the moment, Mr. Rossi just needs to complete his final product. As it seems to be his intention anyway, and he has not asked for any particular support, I think we can safely wait until October.

I'd love nothing more than for this to work, however my problem is that they are deliberately preventing alternate testing - there's no guarantee that once it's built they'll allow this - and you also have the fact they are building it and selling it (via a company that appears to be setup for that purpose) without allowing full testing to occur.

 

[russ_watters]

Hi, Russ. Just curious, but would you mind telling "us" why the deleted link was "crackpot"? (Assuming you are the one who edited it...)

I was. It was conspiracy theory about government suppression of research/evidence.

 

[pallidin]

...about government suppression of research/evidence.

Uh, that happens all the time, and for "good" reasons(I would suppose). It's called national security.

 

[pallidin]

I would also like to offer that there should be a clear distinction between "classified new physics" and "classified new technologies"

Using stealth technology as an example, no new physics were involved, per se.
However, new material physics most certainly was; largely involving identifying suitable compound materials and subsequent fabrication techniques.

Thus, "new technologies" is a given.
New physics, however, is not. Could be there, I don't know, as we do not have a complete understanding of quantum reality, etc...

 

[Lichdar]

I'd love nothing more than for this to work, however my problem is that they are deliberately preventing alternate testing - there's no guarantee that once it's built they'll allow this - and you also have the fact they are building it and selling it (via a company that appears to be setup for that purpose) without allowing full testing to occur.

But I imagine you understand it, no? The Wright brothers spent a LOT of their life after their invention in patent court defending their invention from copycats and rival claimants; if I was an inventor, I too would be paranoid about the legal defense of my invention. It might seem selfish, but inventions rarely make their inventors rich, so he might be obsessively trying to make sure that his effort is rewarded.

 

[Drakkith]

Uh, that happens all the time, and for "good" reasons(I would suppose). It's called national security.

Only if you are trying to research how to make a dangerous weapon or something like that. Other than that the government does not get involved. If I want to research some technology the government cannot do anything to stop me as long as I follow the laws and it isn't extremely dangerous. (If I'm doing nuclear research in my back yard and spewing massive amounts of radiation out, THEN they could do something as that is dangerous. But building a Fusor and trying some minor stuff isn't, as it isn't dangerous. Even if both things were researching the same thing)

 

[Drakkith]

But I imagine you understand it, no? The Wright brothers spent a LOT of their life after their invention in patent court defending their invention from copycats and rival claimants; if I was an inventor, I too would be paranoid about the legal defense of my invention. It might seem selfish, but inventions rarely make their inventors rich, so he might be obsessively trying to make sure that his effort is rewarded.

Sure. We'll just wait and see. If they release a generator or something that DOES provide power, and someone opens it up, checks it out, and confirms that it is indeed cold fusion, then we will know.

 

[kowalskil]

Welcome to PF.

There is no evidence as yet accepted by the scientific community that implies that "cold fusion" has been demonstrated.

That is true; that is important.

But more important, the things most "cold fusion" advocates are looking for tend to violate existing laws of physics, which would lead most credible scientists to conclude such things are impossible. ...

I do not think that this is more important. A disagreement between an experimental result and an existing theory should be a warning sign, but nothing more. Is something wrong with the experiment or is something wrong with the theory? Only reproducible on demand experiments can answer such question. That is the essence of our methodology of validation.

 

[russ_watters]

I diagree. I think it is more important because that's the characteristic that separates reputable/mainstream fields of study from ones considered to be crackpotish. It's a two-fold problem:
1. By ignoring existing theory, there is nothing to steer the research, so the researcher is just fumbling about in the dark.
2. They are ignoring existing theory that says what they are looking for doesn't exist. Why waste time looking for something that doesn't exist? Well, because they believe it does exist or might exist. And so they are explicitly rejecting the scientific mainstream (and so should not be surprised when the scientific mainstream rejects them back).

No reputable scientist would spend what they consider to be wasted time investigating something they are 99% sure doesn't exist. Crackpots on the other hand, are not burdened by trust in the existing theoretical framework, so they will.

And the theories being rejected here aren't fringe theories, at the edge of our grasp of the way the universe works. They are fundamental, important theories that we use constantly, every day. Asking "is somethign wrong with the theory?" is not a reasonable question considering that mountains of "reproducible on demand experiments" already exist to confirm it. The reality is that science has advanced so far and been investigated so thoroughly that even the theories we have that are wrong are still mostly right.

 

[Drakkith]

The reality is that science has advanced so far and been investigated so thoroughly that even the theories we have that are wrong are still mostly right.

I might make this part of my signature. It's awesome.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Welcome to PF.

There is no evidence as yet accepted by the scientific community that implies that "cold fusion" has been demonstrated. But more important, the things most "cold fusion" advocates are looking for tend to violate existing laws of physics, which would lead most credible scientists to conclude such things are impossible. So why would scientists want to look for something they don't think exists?

Muon-catalyzed fusion (μCF) is a process allowing nuclear fusion to take place at temperatures significantly lower than the temperatures required for thermonuclear fusion, even at room temperature or lower. Although it can be produced reliably with the right equipment and has been much studied, it is believed that the poor energy balance will prevent it from ever becoming a practical power source. However, if muons (μ−
) could be produced more efficiently, or if they could be used as catalysts more efficiently, the energy balance might improve enough for muon-catalyzed fusion to become a practical power source.

...Andrei Sakharov and F.C. Frank [1] predicted the phenomenon of muon-catalyzed fusion on theoretical grounds before 1950. Yakov Borisovich Zel'dovich[2] also wrote about the phenomenon of muon-catalyzed fusion in 1954. Luis W. Alvarez et al.,[3] when analyzing the outcome of some experiments with muons incident on a hydrogen bubble chamber at Berkeley in 1956, observed muon-catalysis of exothermic p-d, proton and deuteron, nuclear fusion, which results in a helion, a gamma ray, and a release of about 5.5 MeV of energy. The Alvarez experimental results, in particular, spurred John David Jackson to publish one of the first comprehensive theoretical studies of muon-catalyzed fusion in his ground-breaking 1957 paper.[4] This paper contained the first serious speculations on useful energy release from muon-catalyzed fusion. Jackson concluded that it would be impractical as an energy source, unless the "alpha-sticking problem" (see below) could be solved, leading potentially to an energetically cheaper and more efficient way of utilizing the catalyzing muons.[4] This assessment has, so far, stood the test of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion#cite_note-Alvarez-2

Abstract
Muon catalyzed fusion (μCF) has proved to be a fruitful subject for basic physics research as well as an unusual source of cold nuclear fusion. Recent experiments have demonstrated that over 100 fusions per muon can be catalyzed by formation of the dt¬ molecule in mixtures of deuterium and tritium. After a brief review of the subject's history, the dtμ catalysis cycle and the principal relations used in its analysis are described. Some of the more important atomic and molecular processes and cross sections needed for understanding the μCF cycle are then discussed. Finally, the status of current research is appraised...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJN-470P80B-1Y1&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F02%2F1989&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1730551605&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d291c8d9a3e5aec52785196d6e57176c&searchtype=a

The original paper by Jackson
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x087642734373461/

 

[Phrak]

2. They are ignoring existing theory that says what they are looking for doesn't exist.

What theory is that?

 

[JaredJames]

What theory is that?

I believe the comment was referring to an overunity type situation.

 

[russ_watters]

No, fusion is not overunity. There are a number of theoretical problems with what they are doing, such as producing fusion without radiation. But that's a result, not a starting prediction. The biggest problem at the outset is that the atoms aren't getting close enough together to fuse. So we'd have had to rewrite a lot of what was solidly known about chemistry and QM if P & F and their progeny were right.

[edit] There's a blurb about the theoretical problems in the wiki on this.

 

[JaredJames]

No, fusion is not overunity.

Sorry, thought this was the Steorn Orbo thread. Too many tabs.

 

[Drakkith]

What theory is that?

The theory that states that nuclei require X amount of energy to be brought close enough together to fuse. No chemical reaction or catalyst is going to change that. (Only thing that might is muon-catalyzed fusion, but those are very short lived and NOT what cold fusion attempts are attempting to do)

 

[pergradus]

Why waste time researching cold fusion when real fusion is attainable?

That's like looking for an invisible pumpkin pie when you've got a real pumpkin sitting on the table - it just needs some work to turn it into a pie.

 

[Drakkith]

Why waste time researching cold fusion when real fusion is attainable?

That's like looking for an invisible pumpkin pie when you've got a real pumpkin sitting on the table - it just needs some work to turn it into a pie.

Because some people believe that it IS attainable and is much easier than non cold fusion.

 

[pergradus]

Because some people believe that it IS attainable and is much easier than non cold fusion.

and yet they've not even been able to provide a solid theoretical basis for it.

Real fusion not only is very well understood, but can already be done in the lab.

 

[kowalskil]

Because some people believe that it IS attainable and is much easier than non cold fusion.

The field that used to be called cold fusion is now called CMNS (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. Below is the link to recent reports submitted by CMNS researchers.

http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol4.pdf

.

 

[AlephZero]

and yet they've not even been able to provide a solid theoretical basis for it.

Real fusion not only is very well understood, but can already be done in the lab.

I can remember when I was a kid in primary school back in the 1950s and we had a science lesson about this wonderful new British invention that would produce "free" electricity. Google for the ZETA project at AERE Harwell to find out what happened to it.

Conventional fusion has been the thing that will solve all our energy problems "real soon now" for more than 50 years already.

 

[Drakkith]

Conventional fusion has been the thing that will solve all our energy problems "real soon now" for more than 50 years already.

Fusion has already been done since the 1930's or so. The how and why behind it is very well established. Its only a matter of finding how to efficiently do it in a way to provide power that is a problem. Cold fusion doesn't even attempt to explain how they work and stay within the known laws that govern fusion.

I got to say though, we have made remarkable progress in 60 years of working on fusion. The confinement times and such have vastly improved since those humble beginnings. Hopefully we won't be another 60 years though lol.

 

[russ_watters]

Why waste time researching cold fusion when real fusion is attainable?

That's like looking for an invisible pumpkin pie when you've got a real pumpkin sitting on the table - it just needs some work to turn it into a pie.

Because it's every armchair scientist's (and most are crackpots) dream: An experiment you can do in your living-room with a mason jar and tupperware that changes the world. In terms of practical impact, it would probably be the single greatest discovery in the history of science.

 

[Phrak]

There are a number of theoretical problems with what they are doing, such as producing fusion without radiation. But that's a result, not a starting prediction. The biggest problem at the outset is that the atoms aren't getting close enough together to fuse. So we'd have had to rewrite a lot of what was solidly known about chemistry and QM if P & F and their progeny were right.

[edit] There's a blurb about the theoretical problems in the wiki on this.

There are two main theories on the Rossi claim. One is that an elaborate conspiracy is being perpetrated for mysterious reasons. The second is that Rossi has achieved what he claims to have achieved.

The evidence as I find it, gleaned from comments in the media, supports the latter to far better fit, than the former.

So, after so much smug dismissal as I’ve found here, I'd be happy to collect anyone’s money with a smile, no matter how painful the parting may be, from those that would bet against Andrea Rossi. (No, this is not directed at you, Russ. You’ve obviously applied more than superficial thought to this.)

The physical science is not so mature that it can discount Rossi's claim off-hand.
In other circumstances, such as this, there would be a scramble by theoreticians to explain how theory could be made to fit evidence.

Popular bias against cold fusion has driven the scramble underground and out of sight, and shall not to be seen until the journals overcome their collective fear of ridicule. This won't happen until either Rossi is forthcoming with the reaction ingredients or someone else comes close to duplicating it.



Back to the physics:

There are two peculiarities.

The naive application of theory in the nucleosynthesis of copper from nickel + hydrogen would evolve beta particles yielding gamma radiation in the 5 MeV range. However the shielding in use has been described as one to two cm. of lead. 2 cm will attenuate only about 50% of gamma rays at these energies, though it has been reported that no measurable difference from the background radiation was measured during operation of the device.

More application of naive theory obtains (according to my calculations), 10 times the evolved energy of that reported. In a used sample, according to the Swedish Skeptics Society, 11% iron was found in addition to 10% copper. The iron may be a component of the reaction ingredients, the result of endothermic side reactions, or--for the doubtful—just some concoction of material blended specifically to further perpetuate a fraud, handed over to the gullible for examination.

 

[russ_watters]

There are two main theories on the Rossi claim. One is that an elaborate conspiracy is being perpetrated for mysterious reasons. The second is that Rossi has achieved what he claims to have achieved.

The evidence as I find it, gleaned from comments in the media, supports the latter to far better fit, than the former.

This isn't specifically a Rossi thread, but ok...

Poorly characterized options notwithstanding, that's spectacularly naive. We see hoaxes like that all the time. They really aren't that hard to do and are often highly successful. It really shouldn't be much of a stretch to think it is possible to hoax.

And for the second - it's hard to imagine so easily dismissing a century's worth of hard science!

So, after so much smug dismissal as I’ve found here, I'd be happy to collect anyone’s money with a smile, no matter how painful the parting may be, from those that would bet against Andrea Rossi.

People making that bet are what keep guys like Rossi and the guys who run Steorn and the host of other perpetual motion hoaxster/frauds in business. Ever heard of Joe Newman? He's made a living for 30 years selling a non-existent magnet-based perpetual motion machine. He got his big break landing a CBS news interview in 1984 and you can parlay that kind of worthless credibility into a semi-prosperous career.

You don't have to bet any of us, you can bet it directly on Rossi or Steorn or Newman or any of the host of others (any would be happy to take your credit card info online). But please don't. Eventually, you'll regret it.

The physical science is not so mature that it can discount Rossi's claim off-hand.

Yes, it is, but it isn't just the maturity of the physical sciences that makes us suspicious, it's the attitude and secrecy. They scream 'I'm a crackpot!' Rossi is following the crackpot manual perfectly.

In other circumstances, such as this, there would be a scramble by theoreticians to explain how theory could be made to fit evidence.

Not after the disastrous mistake with Pons and Fleishman, no. Scientists and the scientific community are smart enough not to get sucked-in by a circus ringmaster putting on a show for them again. So I don't think that that sort of thing is likely to happen again. They rightfully demand that science be done scientifically or it gets ignored. Rossi has chosen not to do his thing scientifically, so he is rightfully shunned.

Popular bias against cold fusion...

That's a negative characterization of a perfectly reasonable thing: yes, scientists are biased against things that their theories tell them are impossible and yes, they are biased against people who don't follow the scientific process. Those are positive things that are critical to making science work.

This won't happen until either Rossi is forthcoming with the reaction ingredients or someone else comes close to duplicating it.

I know you won't accept this, but that will never happen. That just plain isn't how these things work. Rossi can drag this out for decades, always being just a few months from releasing his research. That's how these things work. It's in the manual! Heck, this forum is littered with examples like Steorn. Even theoretically sound concepts that just have massive practical problems are good fodder for the exact same thing (perhaps even better - See: Bloom Box). There's a 1km solar power tower that's been a few months from groundbreaking in Australia for the past 10 years or so. And they have government funding! Despite nothing to show for their decade of work, they're expanding operations into the US.

 

[Phrak]

This isn't specifically a Rossi thread, but ok...

Poorly characterized options notwithstanding, that's spectacularly naive. We see hoaxes like that all the time. They really aren't that hard to do and are often highly successful. It really shouldn't be much of a stretch to think it is possible to hoax.

And for the second - it's hard to imagine so easily dismissing a century's worth of hard science! People making that bet are what keep guys like Rossi and the guys who run Steorn and the host of other perpetual motion hoaxster/frauds in business. Ever heard of Joe Newman? He's made a living for 30 years selling a non-existent magnet-based perpetual motion machine. He got his big break landing a CBS news interview in 1984 and you can parlay that kind of worthless credibility into a semi-prosperous career.

You don't have to bet any of us, you can bet it directly on Rossi or Steorn or Newman or any of the host of others (any would be happy to take your credit card info online). But please don't. Eventually, you'll regret it. Yes, it is, but it isn't just the maturity of the physical sciences that makes us suspicious, it's the attitude and secrecy. They scream 'I'm a crackpot!' Rossi is following the crackpot manual perfectly. Not after the disastrous mistake with Pons and Fleishman, no. Scientists and the scientific community are smart enough not to get sucked-in by a circus ringmaster putting on a show for them again. So I don't think that that sort of thing is likely to happen again. They rightfully demand that science be done scientifically or it gets ignored. Rossi has chosen not to do his thing scientifically, so he is rightfully shunned. That's a negative characterization of a perfectly reasonable thing: yes, scientists are biased against things that their theories tell them are impossible and yes, they are biased against people who don't follow the scientific process. Those are positive things that are critical to making science work. I know you won't accept this, but that will never happen. That just plain isn't how these things work. Rossi can drag this out for decades, always being just a few months from releasing his research. That's how these things work. It's in the manual! Heck, this forum is littered with examples like Steorn. Even theoretically sound concepts that just have massive practical problems are good fodder for the exact same thing (perhaps even better - See: Bloom Box). There's a 1km solar power tower that's been a few months from groundbreaking in Australia for the past 10 years or so. And they have government funding! Despite nothing to show for their decade of work, they're expanding operations into the US.

One of us will have mud on their face.

 

[Phrak]

You don't have to bet any of us, you can bet it directly on Rossi or Steorn or Newman or any of the host of others (any would be happy to take your credit card info online).

You have no idea how to vest in this, do you? Ask your sister.

Those are positive things that are critical to making science work. I know you won't accept this, but that will never happen.

I especially like this quote. You're way out of your league.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I especially like this quote. You're way out of your league.

I'm really confused reading this thread as to why you are so sure that there is someone in the world who has invented a cold fusion reactor (essentially in his back garden) when over a century of physics has shown us that it's not possible.

 

[Phrak]

Some people have better gardens then your own. I suggest taking advice from those that have nice looking gardens over those that talk a lot and have crap in their yards. And try to do a little thinking on your own over deference to authority. Sucking up to authority is irritating.

If you have something to add above your religous devotions to labeled authority, spit it out.

I tried to do my best at intimidating the pretenders hanging on Russ's coat tails in order to bolster their self worth, but i guess you missed the hint.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to think that science, as interpretted on this forum, is more than the deference to the opinions of personalities.

 

[Drakkith]

Some people have better gardens then your own. You should be more observationally astute in your cultivation, or you will be prone to taking advice from the those that only have crappy gardens rather then those that have nice ones.

Cold fusion is like planting tomatoes in your garden and having potato's pop up instead. Well, not really, but I can say random nonsense too.