Cold Fusion

[Trinculo]

<p>With all the fuss about global warming, has any one begun to look again into Cold Fusion? Maybe you were using the wrong material when testing.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With all the fuss about global warming, has any one begun to look again into Cold Fusion? Maybe you were using the wrong material when testing. <br />Posted by Trinculo</DIV></p><p>You&nbsp; ought to read the book "Bad Science".&nbsp; It is the story of the cold fusion debacle.&nbsp; It is accurate.&nbsp; I personally found it to be credible and I was also told by a person involved with the Utah Cold Fusion Institute that it is accurate. The problem was not wrong materials.&nbsp; The problem was poor technique in conducting the calorimetry measurements.</p><p>The chemistry department involved is extremely strong.&nbsp; They have several world-class chemists doing excellent research.&nbsp; But they are not nuclear physicists.&nbsp; The two professors who were involved in cold fusion are long gone, but they were not nuclear physicists either.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kg]

<p>How about fusion in general?&nbsp; Any new breakthroughs there?</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How about fusion in general?&nbsp; Any new breakthroughs there? <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>Bombs are&nbsp;pretty powerful.</p><p>Controlled fusion continues to be a subject of research.&nbsp; There was a new laser dedicated in Rochester NY that ought to be able to do good experiments for pulsed fusion concepts (smack a hunk of deuterium/tritium on all sides and see if you can extract energy from fusion).&nbsp; I think there is still plasma&nbsp;research on confining a fusion reaction in a magnetic bottle, but haven't heard any recent news.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Trinculo]

<p>I am currently awaiting on the arrival of a book called 'Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction' by Storms Edmund, so as of yet&nbsp;I&nbsp;can not comment on the calorimetry measurements or on the particular book mentioned.</p><p>What I can say there must be a safer method of creating nuclear fission than pouring heavy water over iranium rods.</p><p>Peer Review</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bearack]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With all the fuss about global warming, has any one begun to look again into Cold Fusion? Maybe you were using the wrong material when testing. <br />Posted by Trinculo</DIV><br /><br />Cold fusion is still being talked about.&nbsp; Some scientist claim they have found a way to stabilize cold fusion using magnetic fission.</p><p>Even the Navy has gained interest in some of the new scientific models for cold fusion: Article from last year</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cold fusion is still being talked about.&nbsp; Some scientist claim they have found a way to stabilize cold fusion using magnetic fission.Even the Navy has gained interest in some of the new scientific models for cold fusion: Article from last year <br />Posted by bearack</DIV></p><p>I looked at the actual paper referenced in that&nbsp;article.&nbsp; The word "fusion" occurs twice.&nbsp; Once in reference to the title of a conference and a second time in the reference section.&nbsp; It is not used in conjunction with the description of the experiment.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bearack]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I looked at the actual paper referenced in that&nbsp;article.&nbsp; The word "fusion" occurs twice.&nbsp; Once in reference to the title of a conference and a second time in the reference section.&nbsp; It is not used in conjunction with the description of the experiment.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />But I think the methods and the end result are one in the same as cold fusion.&nbsp; Just modified techniques.&nbsp; At least now they are able to reproduce such experiments, unlike the 1989 results.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But I think the methods and the end result are one in the same as cold fusion.&nbsp; Just modified techniques.&nbsp; At least now they are able to reproduce such experiments, unlike the 1989 results.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by bearack</DIV></p><p>I don't think so.&nbsp; The 1989 results were based on results that purported to show significant energy being generated.&nbsp; That, of course, turned out not to be true.&nbsp; The paper in question talks about detection of charged particles which they attribute to unspecified nuclear reactions.&nbsp; Now that piece may be reproducible, but whether or not it is fusion and energy producing is another question.</p><p>From what I can tell the authors appear to be chemists.&nbsp; Probably pretty good chemists.&nbsp; But I would not get excited until their results and experimental technique are positively reviewed by a good experimental nuclear physicist or two.&nbsp; There can be some rather subtle effects that occur in experiments, and it may take someone with the appropriate experience to recognize them.&nbsp; Within days of Pons and Fleishman making their claims, nuclear physicists had deteremined that whatever it was that they were seeing, it probably was not fusion.&nbsp; They were right.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think so.&nbsp; The 1989 results were based on results that purported to show significant energy being generated.&nbsp; That, of course, turned out not to be true.&nbsp; The paper in question talks about detection of charged particles which they attribute to unspecified nuclear reactions.&nbsp; Now that piece may be reproducible, but whether or not it is fusion and energy producing is another question.From what I can tell the authors appear to be chemists.&nbsp; Probably pretty good chemists.&nbsp; But I would not get excited until their results and experimental technique are positively reviewed by a good experimental nuclear physicist or two.&nbsp; There can be some rather subtle effects that occur in experiments, and it may take someone with the appropriate experience to recognize them.&nbsp; Within days of Pons and Fleishman making their claims, nuclear physicists had deteremined that whatever it was that they were seeing, it probably was not fusion.&nbsp; They were right. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>This Wikipedia article seems to provide an objective overview of the subject.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How about fusion in general?&nbsp; Any new breakthroughs there? <br /> Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>Research "the Z Machine" </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Trinculo]

<p>The results of the experiments are out there, you just have to know where to look and which authorities to ask!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<p>[We QUOTE]This Wikipedia article seems to provide an objective overview of the subject.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion <br />Posted by DrRocket[/QUOTE]</p><p>We had a great discussion of cold fusion in the threads of the good old&nbsp;pre-Pluck SDC forums.&nbsp; In one thread, one of the cold-fusion advocates, and editor of a cold-fusion e-magazine, and a cold fusion scientist participated, essentially debating vs myself (I am a chemist).&nbsp; In the course of discussion, one of the 'best' pieces of evidence on cold-fusion were the unusual pitting&nbsp;results seen with CR-39 polycarbonate detectors, which was being interpreted as alpha-particle capture.&nbsp; I had very significant criticisms of the experimental techniques, the chemical understanding, the lack of discussion and experiments to remove alternative chemical (non-fusion) explanations of the results, and the inadequate use of reference experiments.&nbsp; To me, it was a case of physicists doing chemistry and not understanding the alternate (non-fusion) explanations of the results due to lack of a chemistry&nbsp; background.&nbsp; The authors responded back via this&nbsp;magazine editor&nbsp;more than once, even running an additional experiments in response to my criticisms and questions, but despite this I did not think they did a very strong job of addressing the alternate chemical explanations for the pitting, or use of reference materials.&nbsp; Anyways, we did have a good debate on the subject, and apparently I think I was one of the few (only one?) who questioned their experiments from a chemistry point of view.&nbsp; Their work did get published (in a Physics journal..I doubt it would have been accepted into a chemistry journal), unfortunately, I was not chosen as a referee for their article prior to publication.&nbsp; I could have been more open (using my real name, and interacting directly via emails and editing) but for professional reasons I backed off, as I did not want my name associated with the online articles or the journal publication.&nbsp; Their publication using CR-39 detectors: http://www.epjap.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/epjap:2007152</p><p>This experience left me with a bad taste of rushed and incomplete science among the cold-fusion advocate community.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This experience left me with a bad taste of rushed and incomplete science among the cold-fusion advocate community. <br />Posted by silylene</DIV></p><p>So far as I can tell everyone who has had much association with the cold-fusion advocate community has come away with a bad taste.&nbsp; Pons and Fleishman would not be very welcome back here in Utah again.&nbsp;&nbsp; People who knew better were sucked into a political maelstrom over what turned out to be nothing more than bad calorimetry.&nbsp; It seems to me that these cold fusion experiments need a good hard dose of scrutiny from&nbsp;theoretical nuclear physicists and from experimentalists in both chemistry and physics.&nbsp; As far as I can&nbsp;tell no one sees any basis to believe that fusion is going to occur without a serious amount of input energy to force the nuclei together despite the repulsive electromagnetic forces.&nbsp; And the only&nbsp;method that has been&nbsp;shown to work or that has firm theoretical basis&nbsp;uses high temperature to turn the trick.</p><p>I know some of the people on the periphy of the original fiasco.&nbsp; I don't they were believers then and I am sure they are serious skeptics now.&nbsp; And by on the periphery I really mean only&nbsp;that they are neither Pons nor Fleishman.&nbsp; That mess was really instigated by hysterical patent lawyers who pushed a public announcement that never should have been made.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[siriusdogstarone]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[We QUOTE]This Wikipedia article seems to provide an objective overview of the subject.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion Posted by DrRocket</DIV>We had a great discussion of cold fusion in the threads of the good old&nbsp;pre-Pluck SDC forums.&nbsp; In one thread, one of the cold-fusion advocates, and editor of a cold-fusion e-magazine, and a cold fusion scientist participated, essentially debating vs myself (I am a chemist).&nbsp; In the course of discussion, one of the 'best' pieces of evidence on cold-fusion were the unusual pitting&nbsp;results seen with CR-39 polycarbonate detectors, which was being interpreted as alpha-particle capture.&nbsp; I had very significant criticisms of the experimental techniques, the chemical understanding, the lack of discussion and experiments to remove alternative chemical (non-fusion) explanations of the results, and the inadequate use of reference experiments.&nbsp; To me, it was a case of physicists doing chemistry and not understanding the alternate (non-fusion) explanations of the results due to lack of a chemistry&nbsp; background.&nbsp; The authors responded back via this&nbsp;magazine editor&nbsp;more than once, even running an additional experiments in response to my criticisms and questions, but despite this I did not think they did a very strong job of addressing the alternate chemical explanations for the pitting, or use of reference materials.&nbsp; Anyways, we did have a good debate on the subject, and apparently I think I was one of the few (only one?) who questioned their experiments from a chemistry point of view.&nbsp; Their work did get published (in a Physics journal..I doubt it would have been accepted into a chemistry journal), unfortunately, I was not chosen as a referee for their article prior to publication.&nbsp; I could have been more open (using my real name, and interacting directly via emails and editing) but for professional reasons I backed off, as I did not want my name associated with the online articles or the journal publication.&nbsp; Their publication using CR-39 detectors: http://www.epjap.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/epjap:2007152This experience left me with a bad taste of rushed and incomplete science among the cold-fusion advocate community. <br />Posted by silylene</DIV><br /><br />When I think of cold fusion I think of snow and ice a perfect example of&nbsp; Cold fusion . </p><p>So if that's nature in the act of creating cold fusion&nbsp; in a natural state .<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#339966">E To The Square</font> </div>

 

[Saiph]

<p>regular fusion:</p><p>IIRC, a few fusion labs have reported "break even" energy levels (more energy out than in)...but the reaction is unsustainable past a fraction of a second before containement fails...which in fusion reactors means the plasma density drops, and the reaction ceases. I've seen an odd new reactor design that's got a helical toroidal structure (thing a spiral wrapped into a ring...) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<p>Although I don't have a dog in the cold fusion hunt, I am curious how the folks in this thread read this article that I just stumbled across:</p><p>http://physicsworld.com/blog/2008/05/coldfusion_demonstration_a_suc_1.html</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Although I don't have a dog in the cold fusion hunt, I am curious how the folks in this thread read this article that I just stumbled across:http://physicsworld.com/blog/2008/05/coldfusion_demonstration_a_suc_1.html <br />Posted by lampblack</DIV></p><p>This sounds just like the Pons and Fleishman experiments that turned out to be just bad calorimetry. I would not be impressed with measurements of heat alone.&nbsp; To convince me you would have to show evidence of the by-products (particles) in an appropriate quantity for whatever specific fusion reaction you claim is going on.&nbsp; Lack of that evidence is what caused knowledgeable physicists to take a hard stance against the Pons and "Fleishman announcement within days.&nbsp; They were right.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This sounds just like the Pons and Fleishman experiments that turned out to be just bad calorimetry. I would not be impressed with measurements of heat alone.&nbsp; To convince me you would have to show evidence of the by-products (particles) in an appropriate quantity for whatever specific fusion reaction you claim is going on.&nbsp; Lack of that evidence is what caused knowledgeable physicists to take a hard stance against the Pons and "Fleishman announcement within days.&nbsp; They were right. </p><p> Posted by <em>DrRocket</em></DIV><br /></p><p>Indeed, whatever <em>is</em> occurring, it is <em>not</em> Fusion. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>